Monday, December 18, 2017
  Home
RSS Feed
Facebook
Twitter
Search:
Media Analyses
Journalists
Middle East Issues
Christian Issues
Names In The News
CAMERA Authors
Headlines & Photos
Errors & Corrections
Film Reviews
CAMERA Publications
Film Suggestions
Be An Activist
Adopt A Library
History of CAMERA
About CAMERA
Join/Contribute
Contact CAMERA
Contact The Media
Privacy Policy
 
Media Analyses





C-SPAN October – December 2015


 
Send your comments about C-SPAN's platform for the defamation of Israel and Jews to CAMERA:  c-span-watch@camera.org
 

December 23, 2015 – 7:44 a.m.

Host: STEVE SCULLY [sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org, @SteveScully].

Topic: 2015 – are you better off, worse, off, or the same as this time last year?

Caller: Robert from Marion, Louisiana (click here to view).

Note: As part of his harangue blaming major difficulties in his life on Congressional Republicans, caller “Robert” complains that “We [U.S. government] give all our money to Israel and others like them.” Unsurprisingly, Scully, the dean of Washington Journal hosts, like his fellow hosts in similar situations, fails to comment. As CAMERA's C-SPAN Watch online feature has chronicled since November 2008, whether it's like Robert's absurd but loaded anti-Israel comment or less absurd such defaming comments not so easily unpacked, the hosts very rarely, if ever, challenge or enlighten since it's always open season at Journal on disparaging (and worse) Jews and Israel.

Caller: “The question is – are we better off or are we worse off or about the same? We are all three of them. A lot of these Republicans and Democrats, they vote against their own interest. When we had the midterm elections, Republicans took over Congress. Congress hold the purse strings. A lot of people don't understand – the reason why the country's going down the sewer is because the Republicans are voting against everything that's for us. I'm on disability. I can't work. I got glaucoma. I'm worse off – about dead. But who cares? You need to change the question. The country will be better if the Republicans were to work with the President. The President can't waive a magic wand. All they [Republicans] want is wars. We give all our money to Israel and others like them. Why don't they just put us a big check in the mail and we'll all be better off.”

Host: “That was Robert from Marion, Louisiana.”

NOTE: C-SPAN never informs viewers about “money to Israel.” Financial (it is military only) aid to Israel ($3 billion annually) constitutes only a tiny portion of the federal budget (less than 0.1 percent). Israel is required by U.S. law to spend most (74 percent) of the U.S. aid in the United States for the purchase of military materials which helps create or sustain thousands of American jobs. And, cooperative arrangements with Israel provide technology benefits to America related to unmanned aircraft, anti-missile defenses, battlefield medical techniques – and intelligence on anti-U.S. as well as anti-Israel Arab and Islamic radicals. Consider votes in the U.N. over the last several years that coincided with U.S. votes – Israel is 90 percent, all other recipients of U.S. support are under 20 percent – Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Philippines and so-on.

December 23, 2015 – 8:46 a.m.

Host: STEVE SCULLY [sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org, @SteveScully].

Guest: MEHRSA BARADARAN, associate professor at University of Georgia School of Law.

Topic: Inequality in the U.S. banking system.

Caller: Jack from Providence, Rhode Island (click here to view).

Host: “Jack, do you make more than $50,000 a year?”

Caller: “Yes. I worked on Wall Street for 30 years and I reached the levels of middle management. I was fortunate. I was trained by three very wealthy Jewish gentleman. And they told me when I was learning the business at 25 years old, they said you have to bring value to the table. Okay? Once you reach a certain threshold, I was treated well, I reached middle management but then it becomes very difficult to get to make hundreds of millions of dollars a year. That is controlled by a very select international financial elite. They pretty much run the game in the world. It doesn't matter who is running for president, Democrat or Republican – they used to say, he who houses the gold makes the rules. Money controls everything. And you have to hand that to them, the Jewish people, I salute them, control world banks.”

Host: “Jack from Providence, Rhode Island. We will get a response.”

Guest: “He brought up Wall Street. It used to be that we separated Wall Street investments and trading from the banking industry. And as we have seen over the last 20 years, those things have merged. And the growing fury against Wall Street was that they were doing is financial innovation, to help us out and really after the financial crisis, it became apparent that Wall Street is massive. It is much bigger than it was. And the size and risk that comes with that isn't really helping us do anything better than we were before. It is really not a benefit to main street to have Wall Street be so large. Because of the heightened risk, main street is threatened whenever the machine of credit freezes up like it did in 2008…”

NOTE: Not surprising for Washington Journal, guest's lengthy (four-minute) response failed to include any comment on the caller's stereotypical anti-Jewish charge (an echo from the standard catalog of antisemitic hate literature and speech), “the Jewish people control world banks.” What is the evidence for this false charge? Consistent with Journal's chronic journalistic malpractice concerning Jews and Israel, host Scully fails to ask the question.

December 20, 2015 – 9:10 a.m.

Host: STEVE SCULLY [sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org; Twitter: @SteveScully ].

Guest: MARC GINSBERG, former ambassador to Morocco, former Middle East advisor to President Clinton.

Topic: Strategy to combat ISIS [Islamic State terrorist entity].

Caller: Robert from Nashville, Tennessee (click here to view).

Note: Caller echoes his own previous call preposterously blaming Israel for Islamic terror phenomenon while slandering the Jewish state. Host fails to challenge. Guest's comment with respect to "settlements" is questionable.
 
Caller: "Thank you for your insights, sir. Do you think that there is anything that Israel can do to help us simmer things down. For example, if they stop the settlements, move back to the ‘67 borders, [indiscernible] according to international law, stop stealing the water from the Palestinians. My point is – is there anything that they can do to stop the sympathy of the moderates, or even the extremists towards extremism? The actions of Israel promote sympathy for the extremists."

Guest: "Thank you. Let me preface – I was raised in Israel and the Middle East and spent all of my formative years there. I was the first Jewish ambassador to an Arab country for the United States and I am very proud to have had that position when I was ambassador in Morocco. I have always believed that the best way in which to help bring a strong and secure Israel forward is to help bring about the formation of an independent and viable, as well as secure, Palestinian state. I have always been against the settlement enterprise. I believe the settlement enterprise only antagonizes the situation. Unfortunately, in Israel – as you well know it's a democracy, our ally, our strong ally – there are divisions of opinion within the country about the settlement enterprise. The fact of the matter is that Israel faces its own extremist threats from Hezbollah as well as from Hamas.. If I said to you that ending the settlement enterprise would end threats from Hamas and Hezbollah, I would be lying. The fact of the matter is that there are these extremist groups, no different than ISIS, no different than Al-Qaeda, that are bent on destroying Israel. Most Israelis have come to the conclusion that the mantra, ‘land for peace,' is not going to provide them the peace they want even if they created that Palestinian state right now. This is largely because Hamas will never recognize Israel's right to exist, and Hezbollah, on its northern borders, still determined to wipe out Israel's right to exist as well. So, you have a very strong Israeli democracy that is wrestling with these very problems right now. However, I have long believed, as I said earlier, that the settlement enterprise is illegal and it should end, and the most important thing that Israel can do is to help bring about a peaceful formation of a Palestinian state. That would take one major problem off the table, insofar as the future of the Middle East."

NOTE: Caller alleges that Israel is "stealing the water from the Palestinians." Typically, C-SPAN fails to question a propagandistic anti-Israel allegation. These are the facts: Water resources available to West Bank Arabs have steadily increased under Israeli management after 1967 when Israel took charge. Palestinian water libels defaming Israel have been exposed by the Israeli think tank, Begin-Sadan Center for Strategic Studies (BESA), which published a thorough review of the situation titled "The Truth Behind the Palestinian Water Libels." (Professor Haim Gvirtzman, Feb. 24, 2014). The review's executive summary reads:

"Water shortages in the Palestinian Authority are the result of Palestinian policies that deliberately waste water and destroy the regional water ecology. The Palestinians refuse to develop their own significant underground water resources, build a seawater desalination plant, fix massive leakage from their municipal water pipes, build sewage treatment plants, irrigate land with treated sewage effluents or modern water-saving devices, or bill their own citizens for consumer water usage, leading to enormous waste. At the same time, they drill illegally into Israel's water resources, and send their sewage flowing into the valleys and streams of central Israel. In short, the Palestinian Authority is using water as a weapon against the State of Israel. It is not interested in practical solutions to solve the Palestinian people's water shortages, but rather perpetuation of the shortages and the besmirching of Israel."

In June 2010, CAMERA pointed out that Israel supplied Palestinian communities with water from Israeli wells, laid hundreds of kilometers of new water mains and connected hundreds of Palestinian villages and towns to the water system – but as an anti-Israel gesture, some villages and towns refused the service. Much of the water in the Palestinian territories has been consumed by wasteful agriculture techniques such as flood irrigation of water-intensive crops, or lost through leaky, ill-maintained pipes.Caller's demand to "stop the settlements" is reinforced by guest Ginsberg who alleges that Israel's "settlement enterprise [in the West Bank] is illegal." What is Ginsberg's basis for this assertion?Typically, the question is not posed by C-SPAN and viewers are left misinformed on the matter. These are the facts: Israeli settlements are not illegal under international law. The false claim of illegality contradicts U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, on which all successful Arab-Israeli negotiations since the 1967 Six-Day War have been based. Resolution 242 clearly avoids stating Israel must withdraw from all of the territories gained in this war. The resolution stipulates rather that Israel withdraw from some of the disputed territory, but not necessarily all. Former U.S. Undersecretary of State Eugene Rostow, one of the drafters of the resolution, has commented on the this fact relative to the resolution's wording: Motions to require the withdrawal of Israel from "the" territories or "all the territories" occupied in the course of the Six Day War were put forward many times with great linguistic ingenuity. They were all defeated both in the General Assembly and in the Security Council. Security Council Resolution 242 remains the basis for subsequent peace plans including the Israeli-Palestinian 1993 Oslo accords that requires only Israeli military withdrawal from unspecified portions of territory gained in self-defense in 1967, and Israel has already withdrawn from most of the territory – the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip.

In addition, the most relevant international law, the League of Nations' Palestine Mandate, Article 6, encourages "close Jewish settlement on the land" west of the Jordan River and that Article 6 is incorporated by Article 80, the so-called "Palestine article" of the U.N. Charter. The United States upheld the Mandate, including Article 6, when Congress approved the Anglo-American Convention of 1924. Assertions that Jewish communities in the West Bank and Jewish neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem are "illegal under international law" are political and propagandistic in nature, regardless of who makes them, but not legal or binding. Furthermore, Jewish villages and towns built in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria, the ancient homeland of the Jewish people) since 1967 are at least as legal as Arab villages built since then in previously existing Arab villages and towns.

A previous (Jan. 1, 2015) "Robert from Nashville Tennessee" call (click here to view) using a similar script, vilified Israel, asserting that radical Islamists are driven to barbarism by the alleged mistreatment of Palestinian Arabs by Israelis. At that time, both host and guest ignored the obvious response that the reality is that Muslims, especially Arabs, are slaughtering other Arabs and Muslims by the hundreds of thousands in the Middle East. They are driven by the aim to establish a regional or worldwide caliphate governed by Sharia (Islamic law) to suppress convert or kill those who disagree, including other Muslims and non-Muslim minorities, and oust Western influence from Arab-Islamic states. Israel as a sovereign Jewish state and a democracy is an example of what they cannot tolerate, not a primary cause of their aggression and blood-letting.

December 18, 2015 – 7:18 a.m.

Host: PETER SLEN (pslen@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Do you trust the U.S. government to protect against terrorism?

Caller: Ron from Miami, Florida (click here to view).

Note: Host accepts without challenge, repeat caller Ron's detached-from-reality theory that the way to defeat Islamist global terrorism is to force Israel to accept the two-state solution with the Palestinian Arabs.

Caller: “Yes. If you can let me finish what I have to say because – the problem [Islamist terrorism] is due to the majority of people in Congress – there was that authority for the two-state solution in Congress – keep the ones for the two-state solution in Israel. The ones against the two-state solution – vote them out because the war on terrorism started in Palestine. Thank you.”

Host: “Ron in Miami.”

NOTE: Typically, a C-SPAN host fails to challenge an anti-Israel caller. Did Slen challenge or interact with any callers in this Washington Journal segment? Yes. Examples: Slen challenged, “Where did you get that piece of information?” in response to a caller's assertion, “They [Muslim residents of Sweden] are going to their neighbors' homes and tacking signs on their doors saying that they must convert to Islam or face death.”(7:48 a.m.). Interacting with a 7:52 a.m. caller, “Could you tell us a little about yourself?” and “How long have you been watching C-SPAN?”

Obsessively anti-Israel Ron's prior Washington Journal indulged calls include: July 20, 2015 – 7:59 a.m. (click here to view) when Ron preposterously claimed that Islamist terrorism in “Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and elsewhere” is due to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict – and false claim that Major Hassan (Fort Hood, Texas shootings) and the Chechen brothers (Boston Marathon bombing) had said that their violent attack on Americans was “because of the Palestinian conflict.” These false allegations were tacitly accepted by host and guest. Likewise, caller's whitewashing of Iran's likely intentions was unchallenged. Other “Ron from Florida” blame-Israel-only calls: January 10, 2015 – 7:05 a.m. (click here to view), June 22, 2011 (7:07 a.m.) when he advised about “all these wars going on [Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan] ... Israel has a lot to do with it ...” Sept. 11, 2011 (7:03 a.m.), May 7, 2011 (7:11 a.m.), March 27, 2011 (8:00 a.m.), and Jan. 28, 2011 (7:03 a.m.).

December 17, 2015 – 8:11 a.m.

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmcardle@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: BILL DANVERS, senior fellow at Center for American Progress.

Topic: National Terrorism Advisory System.

Caller: Carl from Elizabeth City, North Carolina (click here to view).

Note: Off-topic caller with a similar racist message to several other such Washington Journal indulged callers, is allowed a three-minute uninterrupted diatribe that includes dismissing the danger from Islamist terrorism while castigating "white people" and Israel. Typically for C-SPAN, neither host nor guest challenge – in fact, guest seems to reinforce ("I agree with Carl ...") at least part of caller's message. Such is the level of Journal's chronic journalistic malpractice.

Caller: "Everybody is getting excited about the Muslim terrorists, but the terrorists we need to worry about just as much or more, are these homegrown American terrorists, such as the people who are going into churches killing people, people that are going into schools shooting children, like in Connecticut, movie theaters. These were not Muslims. These were homegrown white people. Now, black people have been terrorized since they have been in the country from slavery time on up – Jim Crow and all of that. Government officials were members of the Ku Klux Klan. It was okay as long as black people were terrorized, but now you are scared to death. I am not scared. I have been living here in the south and I have seen Ku Klux Klan marching and everything, and nobody said anything. It is okay as long as the white people are doing it to other people. One thing we can do is get out of the Middle East and stop meddling with those people over there. We have no business telling them what government they can have. In 1953, we went and overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran. The CIA did that ... And that is okay. So we need to get out of the Middle East." We need to start being ... We have one country over there who is occupying people on the West Bank. And he comes over here – the leader of Israel comes over here – and lectures our President while we are sending them $3 billion year, maybe $5 billion a year. So, we don't have to put up with that lecturing and we don't have to mistreat those people in the Middle East."

Note: See NOTE below discussing aid to Israel.

Host: "A lot there to pick up on."

Guest: "I agree with Carl in the sense that home-grown terrorists are a big issue. I think we also need to pay attention to that kind of terrorism – and it is terrorism – and also to the issue of self radicalization, which is what the bulletin that DHS [Dept. of Homeland Security] put out the other day deals with. So it is not an either/or. I think it's both. In terms of our involvement in the Middle East, I think we have interests there. We have global interests. We are the leader of the free world. We remain sort of the first among equals in democratic nations, certainly. I think, therefore, we do have a role to play that is not only the right thing to do, but it is also a thing that protects our interests and values overseas and it's crucial. It keeps us safer at home."

NOTE: The caller is wrong in terms of Israel "occupying people on the West Bank." The West Bank is not an "occupied" part of a sovereign country but rather an unallocated, disputed remnant of the League of Nations' Palestine Mandate. Article 6 of the Mandate calls for "close Jewish settlement" on the land west of the Jordan River. Article 6 is incorporated by Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, sometimes referred to as "the Palestine article." The United States endorsed the Mandate, including Article 6, in the 1924 Anglo-American Convention.

Caller implies ("We are sending them $3 billion year, maybe $5 billion a year") that U.S. aid to Israel is wasted because Israel doesn't do the bidding of the United States. C-SPAN never informs viewers of the relevant facts of this matter. Financial (it is military only) aid to Israel ($3 billion annually) constitutes only a tiny portion of the federal budget (less than 0.1 percent). Israel is required by U.S. law to spend most (74 percent) of the U.S. aid in the United States for the purchase of military materials which helps create or sustain thousands of American jobs. And, cooperative arrangements with Israel provide technology benefits to America related to unmanned aircraft, anti-missile defenses, battlefield medical techniques – and intelligence on anti-U.S. as well as anti-Israeli Arab and Islamic radicals. Consider votes in the U.N. over the last several years that coincided with U.S. votes – Israel is 90 percent, all other recipients of U.S. support are under 20 percent – Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Philippines and so-on.

December 10, 2015 – 7:09 a.m.

Host: PEDRO ECHEVARRIA (pechevarria@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: What is the best plan to fight ISIS [Islamic State terrorist entity]?

Host: Herbie from Mississippi (click here to view).

Note: Caller's idea for fighting ISIS is to “remove Israel from the Middle East.”

Caller: “Yes, I think what we should do is remove Israel from the Middle East. Ever since that happened [restoration of the ancient Jewish state in 1948 continuously populated by at least a small remnant of Jews for thousands of years], that's what's caused all the problems there.”

Note: Caller was allowed to complete his thoughts without a cutoff by the host – in fact, host waited five seconds for caller to continue before going to next caller.

Host: “That's Herbie in Mississippi.”

NOTE: Without response by host, caller demands something that amounts to at least ethnic cleansing of Jews, and even possibly genocide of millions of Israeli Jews. Recently, Washington Journal has aired only one caller, e-mail message or tweet that called for removal of a people or nation for whatever reason. Host Greta Brawner extensively interacted with “Douglas from Kentucky” on Dec. 8, 2015 (7:25 a.m.) who opened by saying, “… Muslims are enemies of the Christians. It is evidenced all over the world, these people are barbarians.” Host replied, “Why do you say all Muslims? What evidence do you have of that?” Caller replied, “Their religion teaches that they are to kill Christians.” Host replied, “We have heard from President Obama yesterday and George W. Bush, that the Muslim religion is peaceful.” Caller responded, “The Muslim religion is not a peaceful religion. It is evidenced all over the world. They are killing their own people. We should deport all Muslims. We should destroy all of their mosques. They are warriors for Allah. They are against America.” Having the last word, host responded, “I want you to listen to what President Obama had to say Sunday night in his Oval Office address about Muslims, ISIS, and Islam.” [video clip].

This is not by a long shot, an isolated racist attack on Jews and Israel tolerated on Washington Journal. It's routine as CAMERA's C-SPAN Watch has shown continuously since November 2008. Host Echevarria should have at least mildly refuted – or invited callers to comment on that racist suggestion – but that's not the way pertaining to Jews or Israel at journalistically malpracticing Washington Journal. As it happened, a subsequent caller, “Mike from Iowa” (below) challenged the message of “Herbie from Mississippi.”

December 10, 2015 – 7:16 a.m.

Host: PEDRO ECHEVARRIA (pechevarria@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: What is the best plan to fight ISIS [Islamic State terrorist entity]?

Host: Mike from Iowa (click here to view).

Note: Caller's message challenges “Herbie” concerning Israel.

Caller: “While I was on hold, I heard several ideas that I agree with, one of which is going after the Saudi Arabians where all of the 9/11 people are from and the mosques that they went to and were radicalized. What I did not agree with is getting rid of Israel. Israel is our biggest supporter in the one country that we can actually trust to do what is right over there. I do not think we have looked to them enough for information and things like that. They have better intelligence on what is going on in that part of the world. What I do think, regardless of whatever political party attempts to stall the problem militarily, because one of them is going to, but that we listen to the military. You just read an article about President Obama saying that we did thousands of missions. Well, the rules of engagement have been so strict that they say 80 percent of those come back without dropping their bombs because we are afraid for civilian casualties…”

[Host fails to respond.]

December 8, 2015 – 9:43 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: U.S. Senator BILL CASSIDY (R-LA).

Topic: U.S. Strategy Against ISIS.

Caller: Robert from Rochester, Michigan (click here to view).

Note: Caller mocks America's great concern about ISIS [Islamic state terrorist entity] and defames Israel.

Caller: "Thank you for C-SPAN. I just have a few comments to make. I am a retired auto executive up here in Michigan originally from Ohio. But as I listen to the Senator, I am appalled. You are a disgrace to your office, sir. To complain about the President helping ISIS – how many people has ISIS killed in the United States? None. None. So we have the GOP who wants to go to war with ISIS and ... the GOP knows what they did when they invaded Iraq. It was an abomination and the Party was done. So, if you want to go to war, you go send your son. I doubt if he's gone. My daughter has been to Afghanistan after we sent her through medical school. She was due to get out and they sent her to Afghanistan and luckily enough she came back. So, I look at this country as a country of contradictions. We are against Planned Parenthood, we are against abortion but we send Israel $5 billion a year and they are a state-sponsored abortion state. Then we have over 300 million guns in this country. And yet you want to make people believe that ISIS is going to come over here and take over our country and kill and hurt us. We have 30,000 Americans dying a year from handguns and you have done nothing."

Host: "Okay, so that was Robert in Rochester, Michigan. I will have you respond. His accusations there – you know – go ahead."

Guest: "We are at war. Robert may think that ISIS – somehow we are conducting war on ISIS unfairly. We are at war with ISIS. And so, aside from the ad hominem attacks that Robert throws at me – we are disagreeing on fact. You have not heard me say, Robert, that I want to commit all of our ground troops to the Syrian-Iraqi region. In fact, you heard me say quite differently, if you have been listening, that we need to do all such things that can cut off the ability of ISIS to promote itself. But I am not at all about 100,000 troops going to Iraq-Syria area. Again, maybe you just weren't listening earlier. And you hit on a lot of different things. We can see that ISIS is exploiting their terrorism. It isn't just about killing Americans. The terror has a disproportionate effect. The act of terror is to terrorize. It makes people feel unsafe leaving or going to their Christmas parties. And to ignore what they are trying to do to our culture, is to have a complete misunderstanding of the effort against us. Robert, we disagree on multiple fronts."

NOTE: Caller misleads about several matters including claims that America "sends Israel $5 billion a year and they are a state-sponsored abortion state." Typically for Washington Journal, an indulged caller is allowed to mislead potentially millions of C-SPAN viewers. The facts are – no U.S. taxpayer dollars go to Israel for abortion since the only financial aid is military aid and none of that is spent on abortions. Furthermore, Israel's government medical system provides funding for abortions under limitations similar to those in U.S. law. Moreover, financial (it is military only) aid to Israel ($3 billion annually) constitutes only a tiny portion of the federal budget (less than 0.1 percent). Israel is required by U.S. law to spend most (74 percent) of the U.S. aid in the United States for the purchase of military materials which helps create or sustain thousands of American jobs. And, cooperative arrangements with Israel provide technology benefits to America related to unmanned aircraft, anti-missile defenses, battlefield medical techniques – and intelligence on anti-U.S. as well as anti-Israeli Arab and Islamic radicals. Consider votes in the U.N. over the last several years that coincided with U.S. votes – Israel is 90 percent, all other recipients of U.S. support are under 20 percent – Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Philippines and so-on.

December 5, 2015 – 7:26 a.m.

Host: PEDRO ECHEVARRIA (pechevarria@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: FBI investigating [San Bernardino] California [Dec. 2, 2015] shooting as “act of terrorism.”

Caller: Earl from Windsorville, Maryland (click here to view).

Note: Caller's tirade includes unchallenged defamation of Israel.

Caller: “I'm glad I'm following that [previous caller] gentleman because it coincides with what I'm saying. It is never going to stop. Because of the hypocrisy – when Obama mentioned early in his career that they hold onto their Bible and the gun in the other hand. They cried about how unjust that statement was. Instead of "In God we trust," they need to put "in gun we trust." I never hear a bumper-sticker Christian calling and asking, ‘What would Jesus do?' I think I remember Jesus saying that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. So, the hypocrisy is so deafening. And then, I wonder if that same application about guns applies to the Palestinians – that if they had guns, the holocaust that they are going through would not have occurred. The hypocrisy of Congress is amazing.”

[Typically, a Washington Journal host remains silent in such defamatory circumstances.]

NOTE: Caller uses opportunity to polemicize for the Palestinian Arabs, (“… if they [Palestinians] had guns, the holocaust that they are going through would not have occurred.”) in their conflict against Israel. Caller's context-lacking application of Jesus' admonition in New Testament has historically commonly been applied as something like – war is never justified unless for defense or – If you are violent, those around you tend to be violent and so-on. So, defending against aggression as against ISIS or other Islamic terrorists, or Nazism in World War II, or Israel defending itself against Palestinian Arab terrorists or the aggression of Arab armies – is a wrong application for caller's admonition reference. Note that caller could have been asked about a similar saying of Jesus, "I come not to bring peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34).

Regarding such a caller's distortions, C-SPAN's Washington Journal never informs viewers that the leaders of Israel's neighboring Islamic Arab countries and Palestinian Arabs have constantly fomented anger, grievance, aggression and blame against Israel resulting in carnage. Gen. Martin Dempsey, former chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress that Israel had gone out of its way to avoid civilian casualties. "No army in the world acts with as much discretion and great care as the IDF in order to minimize damage. The U.S. and the U.K. are careful, but not as much as Israel." Colonel Richard Kemp, a former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, testified on Sept. 4, 2014.
 
Israel's defense against the onslaught is falsely characterized by caller as “holocaust.” Caller's inflammatory, mendacious use of that term here – that is commonly used to refer to the Nazism genocide against the Jewish people – demands a refutation but that is something that journalistically irresponsible Washington Journal is either unwilling or incapable of doing. This caller, “Earl from Maryland,” phoned at least once previously – June 5, 2015 (9:27 a.m.) (click here to view) in which his tirade included condemnation of the Jewish people. On Washington Journal, nearly all defamations of Jews and Israel go uninterrupted and uncontradicted.

November 30, 2015 – 9:04 a.m.

JOHN MCARDLE (jmcardle@eenews.net, c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: ALBERTO FERNANDEZ, former coordinator at U.S. Dept. of State Center for Strategic Counter Terrorism Communications.

Topic: Countering ISIS [Islamic state terrorist entity] propaganda and violent extremism,

Caller: Trevor from Washington, D.C. (click here to view).

Note: Caller, identifying himself as a Jew, falsely condemns Israel and ludicrously asserts that if United States were to condemn Israel, ISIS would play nice. Prior to this call, guest said about the well-known ISIS video showing ISIS terrorists beheading several Arab Muslims, "That was basically to tell a very important constituency of ISIS, the Sunni Arab Muslim tribes of Syria and Iraq, that if you get out of line, we will crush you – we ll destroy you like the example at the time of the prophet Mohammed, where an entire tribe was taken and all the men were beheaded and the women and children were sold into slavery." Caller doesn't seem to realize that ISIS kills people because of who they are and because of what they believe. They kill Christians, Jews, Shia, Yazidis, Druze, and so-on .

Caller: "I wonder if I was thinking about this the wrong way. We're focusing on the outrageous and appalling attack done by their leadership. But behind them must be a mass of people willing to support them. They are not necessarily driven by ideology so much as hopelessness and humiliation. Are there points where we could negotiate with these elements? Could we address some legitimate grievances? I could not imagine that ISIS would be so compelling if we, for example, took a harder line on Israel and their criminal activities. I say this as a Jew, by the way. Would the picture be different? Do we have to think about this only as a militaristic or social media way?"

Guest: "Well, ISIS does not talk very much about Israel. ISIS talks about subjugating the world. It talks basically about – for the West presenting two options. Either you convert to Islam or you submit yourself to humiliation. So, the idea of changing U.S. foreign policy or being tough on Israel, somehow will earn us brownie points with the audience that could be radicalized by ISIS, is frankly ludicrous."

NOTE: Guest appropriately refutes caller's out-of-touch-with-reality theorizing linking ISIS terrorism to Israeli actions – but what is caller's evidence for alleged "criminal activities" of Israel. Typically, when Israel or the Jewish people are defamed by a Washington Journal caller (which is frequently), the C-SPAN host remains silent (with or without a guest).

November 29, 2015 – 8:21 a.m.

Host: PEDRO ECHEVARRIA (pechevarria@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: JAMES K. GLASSMAN, American Enterprise Institute visiting fellow, founding executive director of the George W. Bush Institute, served as undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs from June 2008 to January 2009 (brought new Internet technology to bear on outreach diplomacy efforts).

Topic: Using the Internet to Fight Terrorist Groups.

Caller: David from Massachusetts (click here to view).

Note: Caller claims that ISIS' [Islamic state terrorist entity] potent propaganda is Internet photos depicting Israel's alleged victimization of Gaza and West Bank Palestinian Arabs.

Caller: "I just wanted to follow up on the caller from California talking about the content of the propaganda on the Internet to fight ISIS. I simply wanted to point out that what is readily available on the Internet are the horrendous photographs of the women and children, and the destruction in Gaza. I don't think that – that is too popular here in the U.S. but I'm sure that ISIS can utilize what is going on in Gaza and the West Bank, which is basically done in our name, and we totally support Israel. The photographs, particularly of a year ago, in the summer of 2014, with 520 children killed, and they have graphic pictures on the Internet of that death and destruction. So, that's what we're fighting against and I don't think we can produce anything equivalent to that. I'd like Mr. Glassman's comments."

Guest: "Well, I frankly don't think that is particularly relevant to the point. I don't know whether ISIS uses pictures of Gaza or not, but I do think that what ISIS generally does is – they have a very simple theme, which is not that Islam is under attack – which is what I said before – but quite the opposite –that we [ISIS] are winning – not that we [ISIS] are suffering and or we [ISIS] are losing – but that we [ISIS] are winning. That is their theme, and it is a very, very effective theme."
 
NOTE: Caller refers to casualties in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, also known as Operation Protective Edge. This was a military operation launched by Israel in July 2014 in response to repeated mortar and rocket attacks against Israel and infiltration tunnels intended to facilitate kidnappings and massacres of Israeli citizens. Caller's phrase, "520 children killed," appears mainly on antisemitic, anti-Israel Internet Web sites. C-SPAN Washington Journal viewers could have been reminded that Gen. Martin Dempsey, then chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress that Israel had gone out of its way to avoid civilian casualties. "No army in the world acts with as much discretion and great care as the IDF in order to minimize damage. The U.S. and the U.K. are careful, but not as much as Israel." Colonel Richard Kemp, a former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, testified on Sept. 4, 2014 about Operation Protective Edge, and basically reiterated his testimony about a previous such operation before the U.N. Human Rights Council in October 2009: "During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of war." It's not surprising that former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen, testifying to Congress, characterized the relationship with Israel  as "absolutely critical" to U.S. national security.
 
As for Palestinian deaths in Gaza in 2014, Israeli analyses of figures from Palestinian sources, tracking each casualty by name, age, sex, place of death, affiliation when applicable with terrorist organizations showed approximately half either were affiliated with terrorist organizations or males of prime combat age. In fact, the number of children and adult women among the fatalities was disproportionately low compared to their presence in the general population.

But C-SPAN's Washington Journal, its pretension to being a "public affairs" program notwithstanding, rarely provides viewers with such relevant information when it comes to Israel. It's biased by commission, tolerating if not encouraging so many antisemitic, anti-Zionist callers, and biased by omission, not supplying essential context.

November 27, 2015 – 9:13 a.m.

Host: PETER SLEN (pslen@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Political correctness, free speech, and tolerance.

Caller: Rachel from Miami, Florida (click here to view).

[…]

Host: "You said that you came from Israel – once in a while we get an anti-Israel, antisemitic call on the air here. Should we allow those to happen?"

Note: Here, Slen poses a pertinent question. However, as CAMERA's online feature "C-SPAN Watch" shows – such calls occur routinely rather than merely "once in a while." Moreover, Slen's question asking for a simple “yes” or “no” response warrants a serious answer (see NOTE below).

Caller: "If people feel this way because they were indoctrinated to this kind of language, we just have to be strong and deal with it. That is their culture, what can I do about it? I cannot solve the problems of the whole world. When you have a certain kind of discipline – we are trained from the beginning to respect everybody to be kind and to share, to help. We do. But we do not like to be kicked in the butt."

Host: "That was Rachel calling in this morning – an 80-year-old from Miami, Florida."

NOTE: In response to Slen's question – first, a more serious call-screening process is needed. Second, hosts should discontinue habitually indulging conspiracy-mongering, antisemitic, obsessively anti-Israel callers. Third, hosts should try to seriously challenge such callers instead of typically replying merely, for example, “Okay, that was so-and-so.” How are hosts to become challenge-ready? In addition to the obvious methods, we suggest visiting CAMERA's online “C-SPAN Watch” feature where they will notice that all or nearly all of the slurs and defamatory antisemitic, anti-Israel rhetoric have been comprehensively refuted. Not only are anti-Israel, antisemitic (and often conspiracy-mongering) calls routinely aired on C-SPAN's Washington Journal – many of them are from repeat callers – repeatedly passed through by call-in screeners and repeatedly indulged by C-SPAN hosts. Examples:
 
• "Eric from Georgia" July 15, 2015 ("Mr.[U.S. Senator guest] Cardin looks like a regular white guy, nice guy, whatever. But in actuality, he is a Jewish white guy and if the public was informed of that by C-SPAN, I think they would take his comments differently.") Click here to view. At least four antisemitic calls since August 2013.
 
• "Rick from Ohio" May 26, 2015 – 7:16 a.m. (“So, you have the brainwashing that comes out of Texas and then you have Georgia which was Time-Warner which was just bought by the company that used to own NBC, CNBC and MSNBC and that is New York state and Connecticut. And that is Wall Street and the banking system and then the Jews.”) Click here to view. Since December 2013, at least eight calls defaming the Jewish people.

• "Omar from Indiana" May 22, 2015 – 7:45 a.m. ("Israel is going to be the destruction of the United States.") Click here to view. At least four 2015 calls defaming Israel.

• "Doug from Massachusetts" Jan, 25, 2015 – 9:20 a.m. ("... the power of these [Israeli lobbyists] and their ability to affect United States outcomes.") Click here to view. At least three 2015 calls and 20 since December 2009 defaming Israel. 

• "Patrick from Pennsylvania" Sept. 15, 2014 ("When I listen to your guest, it's almost astonishing when I look at the level of deceit, particularly when it comes to the facts of the words ‘existential threat.' The only existential threat to the United States of America is the Israeli government which represents a true existential threat which was an active participant in 9/11.") Click here to view. Caller also phoned at least on Nov. 3, 2015 defaming Israel.

• "Don from California" Sept. 15, 2015 – 7:37 a.m. ("All of these people who affiliate themselves with the white community, they are just confused Israelite people. They are Jews from Israel, and they do not even know it. The blacks in America, the Hispanics, the Indians, they do not know that they are the real Jews.") Click here to view. At least four 2015 calls defaming the Jewish people.

• "Darrell from Missouri" March 16, 2015 – 7:34 a.m. ("Why you people keep kissing Israel's butt is beyond me. They are not a friend of ours.") Click here to view. At least 16 calls from February 2011 to March 2015 defaming Israel and Jews.

• "Kathleen (several aliases) from Ohio" March 20, 2015 – 7:34 a.m. ("... [media] allows him [Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu] to repeat unsubstantiated claims or false translations about what Iranian officials have said about Israel. They have never said 'We want to wipe Israel off the map.'") Click here to view. At least seven calls since March 2014 defaming Israel.

Allowed by hosts (and call-in screeners), it's always open season on Jews and Israel at C-SPAN's Washington Journal. Classic antisemitic conspiracy theories of evil Jewish behind-the-scenes control, sometimes updated, for example, "Israel was an active participant in 9/11," and antisemitic historical revisionism, such as claiming today's Jews are not direct descendants of biblical Jews, "the blacks in America, the Hispanics, the Indians, they do not know that they are the real Jews" are broadcast unrebutted by C-SPAN. Hosts permit no other country or religious or ethnic minority to be vilified repeatedly by mendacious, inflammatory callers as are Jews and the Jewish state. Yet for years C-SPAN officials have declined to acknowledge the problem.

November 24, 2015 – 7:15 a.m.
 
Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).
 
Topic: Should the U.S. join the French-Russian coalition to fight ISIS [Islamic state]?

Caller: Gutierrez from North Carolina (click here to view).

Caller: “No, because you don't have the same interests. The United States and Israel and the Emirates [United Arab Emirates] – they want to have control of that region. Russia don't have the same interest. Russia is propping up Assad – you know what I'm saying? There are two different interests. The situation is going to escalate. Turkey just shot down a Russian plane. So, it's going to escalate. Russia is going to come and get Turkey. There's going to be a price to pay for that. You've got a situation that is escalating. It's going to be dangerous. You've got more than just terrorism to worry about now. You've got a superpower to worry about now.”

Host: “Right and so, that is a question many people are talking about today, this morning, after the news that Turkey did shoot down a Russian jet airliner [Sic.] ...”

NOTE: Typical of C-SPAN hosts, Brawner neglects to challenge charge concerning America, Israel and the United Arab Emirates, “that they want to have control of that region [Middle East].” More to the point, U.S. foreign policy since the end of World War II has been to try to make sure no hostile powers controlled the region, restricted free trade in petroleum or dominated international waters. Instead of noting this, the Washington Journal host let the caller's charge pass.

November 24, 2015 – 9:48 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Should the U.S. join the French-Russian coalition to fight ISIS [Islamic state]?

Caller: Joe from Texas (click here to view).

Caller: “I support any kind of cooperation between France and Russia and the United States to bring down this evil force. You know the old saying, ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend' would apply here. I think we just need to go forward and defeat this group. But I have a big question about why Israel is never mentioned. We pour billions into Israel, and they just stand by and watch the United States and other countries fight these battles and we do not hear very much from anyone as to why Israel should not be involved. I want to know why.”

Host: “Okay.”

[Host goes to next caller without providing audience with the obvious answer.]
 
NOTE: The caller complains Israel "just stands by" but is not part of the anti-ISIS coalition. C-SPAN's Washington Journal here ought to note the obvious, that just as the United States did not want Israel to participate publicly in the 1990-1991 coalition against Saddam Hussein's Iraq for fear Arab coalition partners would drop out -- even while Iraq launched missiles at Israel – Arab regimes still don't want to be seen by their publics working with the Jewish state against an Arab/Islamic movement. This, even though reports of covert intelligence cooperation are not uncommon. An observation that the anti-Israel passion widespread among Arab countries both undermines their own strategic interests and reflects a deep-seated prejudice would have been pertinent at this point. But when it comes to Washington Journal's approach to Israel, relevance usually is too much to expect.

Likewise, C-SPAN's main public affairs program virtually never informs callers (and viewers) like "Joe from Texas," who resents "pour[ing] billions into Israel," of the facts of the mutually beneficial America-Israel relationship when the subject comes up. Financial (it is military only) aid to Israel constitutes less than 0.1 percent of the federal budget. Israel is required by U.S. law to spend most (74 percent – $2.2 billion) of the U.S. aid in the United States for the purchase of military materials, which helps create or sustain thousands of American jobs. Cooperative arrangements with Israel provide technology benefits to America related to unmanned aircraft, anti-missile defenses, battlefield medical techniques – and intelligence on anti-U.S. as well as anti-Israel Arab and Islamic radicals. It's not surprising that former Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen characterized the relationship with Israel as "absolutely critical" to U.S. national security. Additionally, Israel, with less than nine million people, is America's 20th largest customer (larger than Russia or Spain). Consider votes in the United Nations over the last several years that coincided with U.S. votes – Israel sides with America 90 percent of the time, all other recipients of U.S. support are under 20 percent – including Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Philippines.

November 24, 2015 – 9:55 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Should the U.S. join the French-Russian coalition to fight ISIS [Islamic state]?

Caller: Omar from Indiana (click here to view).

Note: “Omar,” a repeat (see below) conspiracy-mongering caller is again invited to a Washington Journal broadcast to cast blame on Israel and Jews for current Middle East problems. Here he also asserts that Russia and Iran are principled in their support of Syria's dictator Bashir al-Assad.

Caller: “Yes. Greta, you should know that Russia and Iran have both had principled positions as to why they support Assad. Russia, when it was the Soviet Union was supporting his father way back in the 1970's. During the Iran and Iraq war, only two Arab countries supported Iran. That was Libya and Syria. So, Iran and Russia both have principled reasons why they support Syria. I am in favor of a coalition with Iran and the Soviet Union [Sic.]. But, Greta, one of your callers asked you why Israel was so quiet and you did not say anything. The truth is, Greta, not one single bullet from ISIS [Islamic state] has been fired toward Israel, and in fact some of the ISIS fighters who have been injured by Bashir al-Assad's soldiers have been treated in Israeli hospitals. Greta, that should tell you something. Think about that.”

Host: “Okay, what does it tell you? I guess we won't find out [caller terminated his own call].”

NOTE: Caller implies conspiratorially that Israel conspires with ISIS, "… Some of the ISIS fighters who have been injured by Bashir Al-Assad's soldiers have been treated in Israeli hospitals. That should tell you something." This allegation may stem from the fact that more than a thousand injured Syrians, victims of the current bloody Syrian civil wars, have been recently brought to Israeli hospitals and treated free of charge. "That should tell you something" about Israeli humanitarianism, if C-SPAN pointed it out to viewers. Israel's occasional retaliations against any Syrian combatants firing into the Jewish state could tell viewers something else about any alleged covert cooperation with ISIS. But host Brawner appears either unable or unwilling to set the record straight when it comes to Israel. Or Syria, either, not responding to caller "Omar's" reference to the ties between Moscow and Damascus under both Assad dictatorships – father Hafez al-Assad and son Bashar al-Assad – by not pointing out what brutal police states both ran.

Calls from obsessively anti-Israel phoner “Omar from Indiana” include: May 22, 2015 – 7:45 a.m. (“Israel is going to be the destruction of the United States.”) (click here to view); March 28, 2015 (9:10 a.m.) (click here to view); Nov. 17, 2013 (click here to view) when he spoke as an apologist for Iran's Islamist regime.

November 24, 2015 – 9:58 a.m.

Topic: Should the U.S. join the French-Russian coalition to fight ISIS [Islamic state]?

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Caller: Ray from Loma Linda, California (click here to view).

Caller: “I'm all for the coalition with the addition of Israel who is totally supported by the U.S. in their expansion programs – regardless right or wrong. They seem to be sitting on the sidelines and just enjoying the whole thing.”

Host: “Okay.”

[Host goes to the next caller.]

NOTE: What “expansion programs” – the question is typically not asked. As to why it might seem that Israel prefers “to be sitting on the sidelines,” see 9:48 a.m. entry NOTE above.

November 24, 2015 – 9:58 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Should the U.S. join the French-Russian coalition to fight ISIS [Islamic state]?

Caller: Frank from Houston, Texas (click here to view).

Caller: “Yes, I believe we should form an anti-ISIS coalition with France and Russia. However, I do not think we should allow it to happen like we did after World War II where there will be a division of the country. I think we should go ahead and form the coalition, get rid of ISIS, and then leave the Syrians to the Syrian civil war and their problems. On the point of the Israelis getting into the conflict, this would be an absolute lightning rod in that entire region. It would coalesce all of the countries into fighting against the U.S. and the coalition. The Israelis need to stay out of it for that reason. They would just incite an explosion in that area.”

Host: “Okay, that was Frank in Houston, Texas.”
 
NOTE: Caller's view regarding “Israelis getting into the conflict …” is extremely unusual for Washington Journal callers mentioning the topic. These callers typically criticize Israel for not participating in the conflict seemingly willfully ignorant of the fact that the United States does not want the Jewish state involved because that would jeopardize the coalition's mission due to Arab and other Muslim states' unreasoned animosity toward Israel.

November 22, 2015 – 7:22 a.m.

Host: STEVE SCULLY (sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Do you support U.S. ground troops to fight ISIS?

Host: “[Tweeter] Monti [Labban] has this point of view” (click here to view).

Host: “He says, ‘Do we expect reluctant Arab Sunni states to join the fight against ISIS while we have been supporting Israel both financially and militarily for years?'”

NOTE: Off-topic, anti-Israel tweet is accepted by host who is either incapable of or unwilling to question tweeter's debatable assertion. Islam's many-centuries-in-the-making Muslim Sunni-Shiite schism is conflated by tweeter with Arab and Islamic resentment of the existence of Israel in its ancient land (a tiny land mass portion of the now largely Arab Middle East and with a tiny population) in the 20th and 21st centuries and possible resentment of U.S. support of the Jewish state.

C-SPAN rarely, if ever, is concerned with informing viewers of the mutually beneficial America-Israel relationship when the subject comes up as here. Several points are relevant here. First, financial (it is military only) aid to Israel constitutes only a tiny portion of the federal budget (less than 0.1 percent). Second, Israel is required by U.S. law to spend most (74 percent) of the U.S. aid in the United States for the purchase of military materials which helps create or sustain thousands of American jobs. Third, cooperative arrangements with Israel provide technology benefits to America related to unmanned aircraft, anti-missile defenses, battlefield medical techniques – and intelligence on anti-U.S. as well as anti-Israel Arab and Islamic radicals. Consider votes in the United Nations over the last several years that coincided with U.S. votes – Israel is 90 percent, all other recipients of U.S. support are under 20 percent – Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Philippines and so-on.

November 19, 2015 – 8:15 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: GARY PETERS, U.S. Senator (D-MI).

Topic: U.S. strategy against ISIS.

Caller: Susie from Fort Washington, Maryland (click here to view).

Caller: “I want to ask the Senator, is Israel accepting those people [Syrian refugees] since we give them so much? They [Israelis] just came here and got a big trillion dollars worth of money and took it back to their country. Are they taking in any of the refugees?

Note: Anti-Israel caller grossly exaggerates.

Host: “Just to clarify things – you said a trillion dollars, they were asking the money to go from $3 billion to $5 billion per year over the next 10 years.”

Note: A rarity for Washington Journal – a host “clarifies” a caller's bizarre exaggeration denigrating Israel.

Guest: “Yes, and as far as the refugee program in Israel, I do not know what that is.”

NOTE: Caller's outsized criticism of and singling out of Israel from among numerous recipient countries of U.S. financial aid -- echoes the anti-Jewish canard that it is considered acceptable for Jews to cheat non-Jews. In fact, much criticism of Israel is thinly veiled antisemitism.

As to aiding recent Syrian refugees, viewers could have been informed that more than a thousand injured Syrians, victims of bloody internecine conflict among Arabs, have been compassionately recently brought into Israeli hospitals to be treated free of charge. Further, according to a 2013 study published in The Guardian of London, Israel already has one of the largest immigrant populations per capita. And Israel is dealing with some five million Arabs who still claim to be refugees from Israel after 67 years. The natural states to take in Sunni Muslim (at least) refugees mainly from Syria (but also from Iraq, Libya and elsewhere) are the Sunni Muslim states of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and UAE – which dwarf Israel in land size and other resources. But those countries so far have shown no intention to bring in refugees. The Times of Israel reported on Israel's position on the recent refugee controversy: “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday rejected the possibility of Israel taking in refugees from war-torn Syria, saying that while the Jewish state was not unsympathetic to the suffering of citizens across its border, it simply did not have the capacity to absorb masses of people. ‘Israel is not indifferent to human tragedy; we conscientiously handled a thousand [people] who were wounded in the fighting in Syria and we have helped them rebuild their lives,' Netanyahu said during the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem. ‘However, Israel is a very small country. It has no demographic depth and has no geographic breadth,' the prime minister continued. ‘We must protect our borders against illegal immigrants and against the perpetrators of terrorism. We cannot allow Israel to be flooded with infiltrators.' He added that Israel was contemplating sending aid packages to countries in Africa in an attempt to ensure that local residents do not find it necessary to migrate from their homes.”

Furthermore, C-SPAN's Washington Journal, when the subject is discussed, rarely, if ever, informs viewers of the unique advantages of the American alliance with Israel. Several points are relevant here. First, financial (it is military only) aid to Israel constitutes only a tiny portion of the federal budget (less than 0.1 percent). Second, Israel is required by U.S. law to spend most (74 percent) of the U.S. aid in the United States for the purchase of military materials which helps create or sustain thousands of American jobs. Third, cooperative arrangements with Israel provide technology benefits to America related to unmanned aircraft, anti-missile defenses, battlefield medical techniques – and intelligence on anti-U.S. as well as anti-Israeli Arab and Islamic radicals. Consider votes in the United Nations over the last several years that coincided with U.S. votes – Israel is 90 percent, all other recipients of U.S. support are under 20 percent – Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Philippines and so-on.

November 19, 2015 – 9:15 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: U.S. House of Representatives votes later in the day to restrict Syrian refugees to the U.S.

Caller: Paul from Tampa, Florida (click here to view).
 
Note: This call denigrating Muslims as a group is immediately terminated at that point and host rebukes caller.

Caller: “A couple things. First off, aren't these the same Syrian people that tried to destroy Israel several times? They had tanks on the Golan Heights ready to rain down on Israel and wipe them out. God forbid what would have happened if the Syrians had won that 1973 war. Another thing, I don't see the value of having Muslims in the Western world. They have the worst culture in society. They contribute nothing to the world…”

Host (terminating caller): “Paul -- whoa, whoa -- making general accusations about an entire group of people. We are going to move on.”

NOTE: But At C-SPAN's Washington Journal, “making general accusations about an entire group of people” is routinely accepted and rarely, if ever, grounds for refuting or terminating a caller – if that group is Jews or Israelis. Recent example (Nov. 17 7:23 a.m. caller) from among numerous ones, “The people behind it [recent attacks in Paris known to have been perpetrated by Islamic terrorists associated with ISIS] are the Zionists [Jews] who are trying again to get us to go to war against places like Yemen, Libya, Beirut, Sudan."

November 18, 2015 – 7:27 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Syrian refugee program.

Caller: Bill from Cleveland, Mississippi (click here to view).

Note: As usual when the subject comes up, C-SPAN fails to inform viewers of any of the facts concerning U.S. aid to Israel.

Host: “You want Congress and the administration to halt the program? What is it Bill –temporarily or suspend it permanently?”

Caller: “I think they should suspend it permanently. First of all, America – I don't care about what goes on in Syria. It is not my first priority. Our infrastructure is destroyed. Our schools are ridiculous. The same problems they have over there is the same problems we will have here. We have income equality. You can't just have people over here with all kinds of money and people starving. African Americans built this country, and we are second-class citizens without the same rights in the criminal justice system. We don't have rights in society. You're not trying to give us any reparations in terms of federal lands. So, why should we fight your wars? You care about Israel. You give them billions of dollars. We don't have land. We don't have no culture or anything. It was taken from us. You aren't taking that seriously, but you take everyone else's problem seriously. We are refugees. I want the world to be exposed to what America is doing to my people. We still love this country. I am a veteran. What opportunities are there for me because of the color of my skin? So, I don't care about Syrians. I love Americans of all color. We love you America, please love us back. If you want to make industrial prison complexes so America can have jobs for those who do not want to work on the farm – it is ridiculous.”

Host: “Alright, we got your point.”

NOTE: In a plea for U.S. government financial and other assistance to African Americans, caller cites financial aid to Israel because “You [United States] care about Israel.” But C-SPAN rarely, if ever, informs viewers regarding the facts concerning American aid to Israel when the subject comes up. Several points are relevant here. First, financial (it is military only) aid to Israel constitutes only a tiny portion of the federal budget (less than 0.1 percent). Second, Israel is required by U.S. law to spend most (74 percent) of the U.S. aid in the United States for the purchase of military materials which helps create or sustain thousands of American jobs. Third, cooperative arrangements with Israel provide technology benefits to America related to unmanned aircraft, anti-missile defenses, battlefield medical techniques – and intelligence on anti-U.S. as well as anti-Israeli Arab and Islamic radicals. Consider votes in the United Nations over the last several years that coincided with U.S. votes – Israel is 90 percent, all other recipients of U.S. support are under 20 percent – Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Philippines and so-on.

November 18, 2015 – 8:45 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: LOU BARLETTA, U.S. Representative [R] Pennsylvania

Topic: Paris Terrorist Attacks and U.S. Strategy toward ISIS.

Caller: John from South Hampton, Pennsylvania (click here to view).

Caller's obvious negative misstatement about Israel is accepted by both guest and host.

Caller: “Thank you for taking my call. Yes this congressman has been a leader in the patriotic immigration restrictionist movement. He does a fantastic job. And quite frankly, with 90 million Americans unemployed, we should really have a pause in our immigration. But with respect to the refugee situation, I mean, Germany is literally committing suicide. I mean, have you seen the – I think the media has a blackout on showing these 10,000 people coming and the establishment says that 2 percent are of fighting age. If you had seen the pictures – 60, 70, 80 percent are young men.”

Host: “That have been allowed into the United States?

Caller: “Right. I'm saying when you see the amount of people coming in, they are mostly young men. Why aren't they fighting for their country? The thing is – this is tribal. It's tribal. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the Gulf states and Israel all support the anti-Assad rebels. They are Sunni Muslims. And they want chaos. They want to force Assad from office and Assad is protecting all the minorities – the Christians, the Armenians, the Greeks, the Alawites – and we have given – the previous gentleman who really wasn't sure of his information – but the previous caller – he said that we have in fact given weapons to others and to ISIS [Islamic state] in the past and it was in the New York Times.”

Host: “Okay, alright, we'll let the guest respond.”

Guest: “Well, again, I think the big question is, what is wrong with taking a pause? Taking a time-out until we allow our national security experts …”

NOTE: Guest's lengthy response mainly urging a pause in the refugee program failed to include comment on caller's false inclusion of Israel in the list, “Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the Gulf states and Israel all support the anti-Assad rebels.” In fact, there is no evidence that Israel supports anti-Assad rebels. Israel has repeatedly asserted in effect that it has no dog in this fight.

November 17, 2015 – 7:23 a.m.

Host: PEDRO ECHEVARRIA (pechevarria@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: President Obama says that sending U.S. troops to fight ISIS would be a mistake.

Caller: Robert from Maryland (click here to view).

Note: Passed through by call-screener and indulged by host, lunatic-fringe conspiracy-theorist asserts Israel carried out the Nov. 13, 2015 terrorist attacks in France, just as it "was responsible" for the Sept. 11, 2001 destruction of the World Trade Center. C-SPAN's Washington Journal not infrequently provides a platform for such anti-Zionist, antisemitic defamation.

Caller: "I want to say that my heart goes out to these poor people who suffered in Paris, France. I want to be as cogent and brief as possible. The true reason for the motive for this attack, first of all, stems from the fact that France has an upcoming vote in December to basically acknowledge Palestine as being an independent state. Sweden was the very first European country to have done this and France was warned harshly by [Israel's Prime Minister] Bibi Netanyahu that if they would proceed with this upcoming vote in December to acknowledge Palestine statehood, that there would be dire consequences.
 
The people behind that Paris attack were also behind 9/11 [the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on America perpetrated by Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda]. All you got to do is to go no further than our so-called buddies in a place called Israel and you'll see that the dirty work was done by the Mossad [Israel's government agency for external intelligence comparable to the American CIA]. These are the people behind it. Please America, don't fall [indiscernible] for them promoting Islamophobia. The Syrians are not the people who are behind it. The people behind it are the Zionists who are trying again to get us to go to war against places like Yemen, Libya, Beirut, Sudan. Thank you so much."

[Host fails to respond.]

NOTE: Host accepts without comment caller's sweeping "blame-Israel" allegations for documented Islamic terrorism. Israel and Jews are the only ethnic/religious group routinely vilified on Washington Journal. CAMERA's C-SPAN Watch documents the program and network's indulgence of such callers, and occasionally guests, going back to 2008.

November 17, 2015 – 8:38 a.m.

Host: PEDRO ECHEVARRIA (pechevarria@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, U.S. Representative [D] New Jersey.

Topic: Should U.S. troops be sent abroad to fight ISIS?

Caller: John from Virginia Beach, Virginia (click here to view).

Note: Caller states false unchallenged statistic negatively portraying Israel.
 
Caller: "My question is why can we not send more humanitarian aid to Syria to stop the incoming of the refugees because they do not have food and water over there and [Syrian dictator Bashar al-]Assad is not willing to help them with that. We can also be seen as a leader in the humanitarian effort, and that would prevent people – make less people want to join ISIS [Islamic State] to fight against us. Also, this bombing of Syria is not the best way to deal with ISIS. What we have to do is raid their intel [intelligence – information gathering]. Because we've seen that in when Israel was bombing Gaza [indiscernible], it was like 80 percent civilian casualties. So, I don't think it's really the most efficient way to really target ISIS. We just have to have better intel, just like Obama said, and better communication with other countries."

Note: Caller uses a highly exaggerated figure for non-combatant Arab casualties in the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict, also known as Operation Protective Edge. This as a military operation launched by Israel in July 2014 in response to repeated rocket attacks upon the Israeli populace from the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. The "80 percent" figure is inflated and completely misleading (see NOTE below).

Guest: "I want to thank you for the question because you hit a number of really important points. First of all, humanitarian aid is definitely important. To the extent that we are able to do that in Syria, I'm certain we are committed to that. But accepting refugees who are fleeing violence, who are fleeing persecution, who are scared for their lives and families, that is the ultimate humanitarian aid we can provide to other people. It has been provided in the past. It is who we are and it is not something we should shirk our responsibility towards.

With regard to whether or not bombing, from afar, is the way to go, as opposed to intel and communications, I think sharing more intel, sharing more communication, building more coalitions – all of these things are very important to ultimately be able to push back and destroy ISIS. I believe we are very, very careful as best we can, to be strategic as to who is being targeted and where they are being targeted. And somewhat unlike – the sort of – Israeli-Palestinian situation, ISIS has not necessarily, to my knowledge, been infiltrating hospitals, schools, neighborhoods. So, we kind of know there are places where they are holed up. We are finding ways to remove them from strongholds that they have had. They are all things we will have to try to put together to be used to destroy this sort of evil force [ISIS]."

Note: Here, guest, not entirely clearly and not offering any evidence, presumably means to say that she believes that unlike the terrorist organization Hamas' tactic in its war with Israel, ISIS has not "been infiltrating hospitals, schools, neighborhoods." But guest here is misinformed. Like Hamas although on a larger scale and perhaps more intensively, ISIS – in seizing and running Iraqi and Syrian cities including Mosul and Raqqah as well as towns and villages – has subjugated residents; imposed brutal Islamic law; and taxed, tortured and murdered minority group members. In the process it has used public institutions, including hospitals and schools, and based itself in residential neighborhoods, as it has seen fit. CBS News reported this week, “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) militants are stiffening their defenses for a possible assault on their de facto capital of Raqqa, as international airstrikes intensify on the Syrian city in retaliation for the Paris attacks. ISIS fighters are hiding in civilian neighborhoods and preventing anyone from fleeing, former residents say.”

Differences between Hamas and ISIS are more likely to be those of degree, not kind. Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, founded and still based in Egypt. ISIS is the outgrowth of al-Qaeda in Iraq, originally led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Al-Qaeda, of course, was founded by former Brotherhood members such as Osama bin Laden successor and current leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and others influenced by Brotherhood ideology.

NOTE: The casualty figures in the 2014 conflict between the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip and Israel have been manipulated by many to vilify Israel. CAMERA's Steven Stotsky, using figures from the Palestinian Committee for Human Rights, found very low percentages of adult female casualties and high numbers of fatalities among males of combat age, 17 - 39 after the first two weeks of fighting. ("How Hamas Wields Gaza's Casualties as Propaganda," July 29, 2014, TIME magazine). Interestingly, there is a spike in casualties starting at the age of 17, peaking in the early to mid-20s, and then rapidly diminishing. It is also worth recalling that during the winter 2008-09 conflict between Israel and Gaza, many in the news media repeated Hamas' claims as fact that "most" of those killed were civilians. Months later, after the world had stopped paying attention, Hamas acknowledged that, in fact, it had lost many hundreds of its fighters, essentially confirming the figures Israel had been stating all along.

Furthermore, each of the thousands of terrorist rockets launched at Israel was a war crime, regardless of the fact that Israel's "Iron Dome" short-range missile defense system destroyed many of them; Israel's efforts to limit civilian casualties – including warnings by leaflets, phone calls and text messages of imminent attacks – went beyond that of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Gen. Martin Dempsey, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told Congress that Israel had gone out of its way to avoid civilian casualties. "No army in the world acts with as much discretion and great care as the IDF in order to minimize damage. The U.S. and the U.K. are careful, but not as much as Israel," Colonel Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, testified on Sept. 4, 2014 about Operation  Protective Edge, just as he had said about a previous such operation in his testimony before the U.N. Human Rights Council in October 2009: "During Operation Cast Lead, the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of war." But C-SPAN's Washington Journal, its pretension to being a "public affairs" program notwithstanding, rarely provides viewers with such relevant information when it comes to Israel.

November 15, 2015 – 7:07 a.m.

Host: PAUL ORGEL (porgel@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Which party [Republican or Democrat] do you trust more on national security issues?

Caller: Oyase from Las Vegas, Nevada (click here to view)

Note: In today's first segment of C-SPAN's Washington Journal, host Orgel questioned several of the two dozen or so callers regarding their messages but characteristically failed to question, much the less challenge, any of the callers who defamed Israel regardless of how inflammatory was the false message. Orgel has specialized in this sort of thing (see NOTE below).

Caller: "One problem with everything they been doing – Republicans and Democrats – When they created the state of Israel, they created World War III. The state of Israel belongs to Russia, not America. America pays for it, Russia controls it. As you've seen, we have heard nothing from [Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and Putin's meeting at all. After that meeting, Russia invades Syria. That is the problem to all the wars in the Middle East, that's creating this false state of white supremacy in Palestine."

Host: "Okay. That was Las Vegas."

NOTE: Orgel is an old hand at indulging lunatic-fringe, anti-Jewish, anti-Israel conspiracy mongering phoners like "Oyase," for example, "Lee from Huntington Beach" (Jan. 26, 2015 – 8:13 a.m.) (Click here to view). In another example (click here to view), on two consecutive days in January 2010, Washington Journal host Orgel indulged, on Jan. 1 at 9:51 AM, "Janet from Birmingham, Alabama" and then on Jan. 2 at 7:50 AM, "Carol from Scotsville, Arizona." As the 3.5 minute clip at the link conclusively shows, both of these calls came from the same woman speaking in the same uncommon voice delivering similar uninterrupted diatribes, each beginning with the same phrase, "First of all …" Orgel didn't get it then in 2010 – and he doesn't get it now – still mishandling such bizarre phoners. But in this he differs little from his fellow Journal hosts, virtually all of whom are guilty of chronic journalistic malpractice by tolerating or even indulging anti-Israel, antisemitic messages. CAMERA's C-SPAN Watch feature has documented this failing for the past seven years.

November 15, 2015 – 7:29 a.m.

Host: PAUL ORGEL (porgel@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Which party [Republican or Democrat] do you trust more on national security issues?

Caller: Bob from St. Louis, Missouri (click here to view).

Note: Disinterested (apparently) host has no response to caller's pronouncement of doom for the U.S. two-party political system because Congress invited the leader of an American ally, Israel, to address it.

Caller: "I would like to put my support behind the Netanyahu party because the day he was allowed to speak to all of Congress – that was the day I gave up on the two-party system. Might as well let him be the president of U.S. So, I don't support either one."

Host: "Okay, thank you for calling. We are actually going 30 more minutes because we have so much material from the debate and from Florida. We will do this until 8:00 a.m. Eastern time. Again, we are asking folks which party they trust on national security. The numbers are (202) 748-8000 for Democrats. Republicans, (202) 748-8001. Independents, (202) 745-8002. We look forward to more of your calls coming in."

November 15, 2015 – 7:40 a.m.

Host: PAUL ORGEL (porgel@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Which party [Republican or Democrat] do you trust more on national security issues?

Caller: Ben from Springfield, Massachusetts (click here to view).

Note: Caller blames the current problems involving the Middle East on "colonialism" and "the establishment of Israel." How did he come to this historically revisionist conclusion? Israel embodies an ancient people returning to its homeland, not colonialism. But creation of Arab countries including Jordan, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon and to some extent Saudi Arabia by Great Britain and France were, at least partially, the result of European imperialism. But on this, both caller and host are silent. Typically, substantive follow-up questions in response to errant caller claims about the Middle East in general, Israel in particular, are not asked by the C-SPAN host.

Caller: "I trust the Democrats."

Host: "How come?"

Caller: "I think we all know, Democrats and Republicans, need to understand a little bit of history. This goes back a ways. It goes back to the period of colonialism and the establishment of Israel and the placement of these people who were displaced throughout the Middle East and still carry grudges. I listen to the Republicans who talk about blaming Clinton and Obama, particularly Rick Santorum. Either he is an idiot, or the most demagogueic that I have heard . But we have to stop blaming people and understand what is going on. We are reacting out of emotions rather than understanding how things got started, who is involved, and how we need to deal with it. We are not the rulers of the world. The United States is not and will not be the ruler of the world. No individual country will be that at any in the future. We need to understand that, and plan accordingly. We need to get along with people even if we sometimes disagree with them."

Host: "Ben, thank you for weighing in."

November 15, 2015 -- 7:56 a.m.

Host: PAUL ORGEL (porgel@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Which party [Republican or Democrat] do you trust more on national security issues?

Caller: Tyrone from Georgetown, New York (click here to view).

Note: Host Orgel accepts caller Tyrone's two-minute, uninterrupted diatribe featuring detached-from-reality claims praising Russia and Syria's Assad while blaming Israel (and Saudi Arabia) for Middle Eastern problems through the two countries' alleged control of Congress. Again, the C-SPAN host indulges an anti-Israeli conspiracy theorist caller.
 

Caller: "I trust the Democrats a lot more, but neither party is serving our interests. The Republicans – I cannot believe the way they are going against the President, saying this is the President's fault, when we should be pulling together as a country. We are at war now. I do not think they should be putting our President down. When we seem divided, it makes ISIS [Islamic State] stronger. That is one of the main reasons they are doing all of this stuff because they know they can get away with it.

Also, each party is embedded with Saudi Arabia and Israel. Saudi Arabia has funded ISIS. No one says anything about that. Israel is dictating our foreign policy such as saying Assad must go. Assad don't need to go – he was keeping everything in line. That shouldn't be a policy of ours. Policy should be based on what is best for the American people, not what is best for Israel or Saudi Arabia. Both parties are in bed with these people. I just cannot believe how our foreign policy has been ran. Bin Laden would really be laughing now because we played right into his hands. George Bush started all this. The Republicans, they are not taking any blame. They all voted for George Bush to go in there and do all these wrong policies. They was warned that all of these things would happen. They are taking no responsibility.

Now, Obama comes into a mess that no one can fix. No one wants to send troops over there. They keep on putting everything on him, and saying it is his fault. I think it is very childish. I think the Democratic Party, and Republicans too, are indebted to Saudi Arabia and Israel. They will never get anything done unless they do what is best for the American people. Right now, I think we should get in with the Russians. The Russians want to destroy ISIS. We can come together, two big superpowers, and leave Assad in power. He wasn't hurting the United States."

Host: "Alright, Tyrone – thanks for calling. Tyrone mentions Russia – Michael writes that Russia is the reason that Obama is showing more interest in Syria."
 
NOTE: Caller makes obviously questionable claim of Israeli and Saudi control of Congress and U.S. foreign policy. But Israel failed in a high-profile effort summer to block the Obama administration's nuclear deal with Iran, and Saudi officials have complained, with little apparent result, of U.S. hesitancy in fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Host usefully could have pointed this out and challenged caller's conspiratorial assertions, but when it comes to anti-Israel charges, Washington Journal hosts rarely bother.

November 15, 2015 – 9:02 a.m.

Host: PAUL ORGEL (porgel@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: ANGUS JOHNSTON, historian and advocate of American student organizing, founder of StudentActivism.net.

Topic: History of Student Activism.

Caller: Alan from Spring, Texas (click here to view).

Caller: "My question to the guest is regarding – as you see activism rising and working through the technologies we have today, such as social networking we have today, what I have noticed is certain business interests or political interest, powerful financial interests – trying to control political activism on campus the way they are trying to control the political policies – for example, the presidential campaign and politics in the U.S. in general. I'd like to give you an example. Sidney Sheldon who is pretty much trying to control the foreign policies of the Republican candidates and party, recently launched the campaign against student activists basically advertising to corporations, companies, and giving, by name – which I think is slanderous to the students and really objectionable in terms of freedom of speech – identifying students by name and identifying them as terrorists for engaging in activism on campus and advertising to potential employers. Specifically, he was targeting – and this is where you will get other callers trying to call me names and I would ask you to have them present their facts – but he was targeting students who are taking actions in protests of Israeli policies of occupation of the Palestinian territories. So, my question is – are you aware of this? Is there anything that students or universities can do to protect their freedom of speech and to protect themselves from slander?"

Host: "Thank you for calling."

Guest: "Yes, we have seen an increase in the past few years of protests against the Israeli occupation, calls for BDS movement (boycott, divestment, sanctions) picking up steam on some campuses. They have endorsed this and yet they have seen a lot of push back and, in some cases, public criticism. I think this is one part of a larger trend which I have been talking about a lot in the last week, which is what would have been a few years ago, what would have been a local political protest, which was not visible to or known to just about anybody beyond the campus community, now is frequently national news. The individual students who are involved in these protests can now wind up really under a microscope in ways that was very, very rare, in as little as eight years or 10 years ago. And I think in terms of what can be done to protect these students' privacy, the short answer is – not very much in an institutional way. Because when you are choosing to go out in public, you are going to be public. You are going to be subject to all it entails.
 
But I think there are two things that can be done. One is that students can train themselves and learn about how to be more cautious about how to be more aware of the repercussions of their actions, how to present themselves on this national and global stage in a way that will not open themselves up to some of the kinds of attacks that we have seen. I think the other question really is a question for the media to look at for themselves. I think there are really significant questions to be asked about how do you report these stories and which stories they report. Because there is a tendency to pick either the most dramatic or the apparently most outrageous stories that confirm one's own biases…"
 
NOTE: Caller and guest, enabled by C-SPAN, mislead viewers in implying that campus anti-Israel activists routinely suffer for their protest activities. In fact, it is these activists who routinely bully pro-Israel students and others. Example, CAMERA reports on the suffering endured by pro-Israel students and others besieged by anti-Israel and anti-Semitic groups and activists on campuses across North America (“Connecticut College Professor Targeted by Anti-Israel Hate Groups,” April 28, 2015; Sarit Catz). Furthermore, the facts of the situation tend to expose the shallowness and disingenuousness of the arguments put forth by these anti-Israel activists. Both caller and guest support campus protests against the "Israeli occupation" but ignore or hide the facts that the BDS movement opposes the existence of Israel as a Jewish state in any borders; objecting to Israel's "occupation" of the West Bank is a pretext. The antisemitic, as well as anti-Zionist nature of some BDS founders and activists, has been publicized, though not by C-SPAN. BDS was founded by Palestinian “civil society groups”—including U.S.-listed terror groups Hamas and al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade of Fatah, and Syrian extremist groups.

Further, in the West Bank, Israel is the legal military occupational authority, pending a negotiated settlement according to U.N. Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. That's because it gained the territories in 1967 in a war of self-defense and held them the same way in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. In addition, it has not forcibly transferred Arabs out or Jews in, and the land itself is not an occupied part of a sovereign country but an unallocated, disputed remnant of the League of Nations' Palestine Mandate. Jewish villages and towns built in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria, the ancient homeland of the Jewish people) since 1967 are as appropriate as Arab areas built since then expanding previously existing Arab villages and towns.

More than 90 percent of West Bank Palestinian Arabs are under Palestinian Authority administration and Israeli military supervision (Israel left Gaza in 2005) because their leaders repeatedly refuse offers of a "two-state solution." If such a deal means peace with Israel as a Jewish country or yielding on the "right of return" for millions of Arabs (mostly their descendants) who fled Israel largely out of fear of fighting started by the Arab invasion of the new Jewish state or at the behest of Arab leaders in 1948-49, Palestinian leaders haven't wanted it.

London's Mayor Boris Johnson aptly characterized BDS this month: "I cannot think of anything more foolish than to boycott a country that when all is said and done is the only democracy in the region, the only place that has in my view a pluralist open society." But views like Johnson's -- and they are not uncommon, and relevant Arab-Israeli history -- virtually always pass without notice on C-SPAN's Washington Journal, home of the anti-Jewish, anti-Israel lunatic fringe callers.

November 15, 2015 – 9:43 a.m.

Host: PAUL ORGEL (porgel@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Concerned about a potential terrorist attack on the U.S.?

Caller: Joe from Prichard, West Virginia (click here to view).

Note: Caller is "not concerned about a terrorist attack here in America." But this attitude is certainly not shared by America's general public according to opinion polling. Does caller not believe that Islamic terrorists now wreaking havoc in the Middle East and Europe might reach U.S. shores? Is caller not aware of the massacre of thousands perpetrated by Islamic terrorists in New York on Sept. 11, 2001? Seemingly disinterested host Orgel doesn't ask. Journalistic malpractice continues to thrive at C-SPAN's Washington Journal.

Caller: "Thank you for C-SPAN. These are very important shows. I wish more of America watched C-SPAN instead of the national media.".

Host: "Glad you are watching."

Caller: "I am not concerned about a terrorist attack here in America. I am concerned about West Virginia, in particular, but the United States in general because of the lack of jobs, the lack of things that are important to us. We have stuck our nose in the Middle East for so long that we disrupted that entire area and there is no way to fix it. I'm a Democrat and I am going to support [Democrat presidential candidate] Bernie Sanders. I truly think he is on the right track. We need to fix America, we need to fix health care.
 
I am a disabled coal miner. Coal mining has devastated West Virginia and there is probably $2 trillion worth of liability left by these coal companies and there is no money to fix it. We funded the industrial revolution from West Virginia and we're suffering from it. There's enough waste in the military that has over – we have over 700 military bases overseas. Let's take some of that money, even the $4 billion we give to Israel every year, or the $2 billion we give to Egypt or the $2 billion we give to Jordan. Let's just get a little of that, even though it is 1 percent of our budget, to places like West Virginia."

Host: "Okay, Joe."

[Host fails to comment.]
 
NOTE: In the massive U.S. budget, it is possible that significant cuts can be made – but caller, in addition to mentioning the hundreds of overseas military bases – singles out cuts for Israel (and Egypt and Jordan) as a source for funds for West Virginia. Is he prompted by some particular source? Israel receives $3 billion in U.S. aid annually, not $4 billion, though it reportedly has requested more beginning in 2017 due to upheaval in neighboring Arab countries and Iran's drive for nuclear capabilities. Jordan receives $1 billion annually, not $2 billion. Where did the caller get his "facts"? The question is not asked.
 
C-SPAN's Washington Journal, when the subject is discussed, rarely, if ever, informs viewers of the unique advantages of the American alliance with Israel. Several points are relevant here. First, financial (it is military only) aid to Israel constitutes only a tiny portion of the federal budget (less than 0.1 percent). Second, Israel is required by U.S. law to spend most (74 percent) of the U.S. aid in the United States for the purchase of military materials which helps create or sustain thousands of American jobs. Third, cooperative arrangements with Israel provide technology benefits to America related to unmanned aircraft, anti-missile defenses, battlefield medical techniques – and intelligence on anti-U.S. as well as anti-Israeli Arab and Islamic radicals. Consider votes in the United Nations over the last several years that coincided with U.S. votes – Israel is 90 percent, all other recipients of U.S. support are under 20 percent – Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Philippines and so-on. Washington Journal looks like a news program, but when it comes to Israel, Jews, and the Middle East, looks often deceive.

November 12, 2015 – 9:09 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: TOM RIDGE, U.S. Dept. Homeland Security secretary (2013-05), Governor (Republican) of Pennsylvania (1995-2001).

Topic: Threats to U.S. national security.

Caller: Harry from Harvey's Lake, Pennsylvania (click here to view).

Note: Typical indulged Washington Journal caller, when the topic comes up, grossly exaggerates both the amount of financial military aid to Israel and the proportion of the U.S. budget spent on foreign aid, particularly for the military aid to Israel.

Caller: "Yeah – Tom, I know you, I actually have a picture of you shaking my hand. I made a donation to you."

Guest: "Thank you."

Caller: "It somewhere in the early ‘90's, not sure what the year was. I was a big fan of yours and have a question for you. My question is – with America on her knees financially, why would we consider increasing our foreign aid to Israel from $4.7 billion to $9.7 billion when we are on our knees financially? I know that the usual response I get is that Israel is an ally but aren't all the members in NATO our allies? Don't we also give money to Jordan and Egypt?"

Host: "Harry, we will take your point because [Israel's] Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington just recently talking to the President asking for more money for foreign aid."

Guest: "I would try to answer your legitimate question with a broader perspective. I'm not sure if you will take my photograph down after I share with you – but our foreign aid is probably 1 percent or less of our overall budget. Some of it does goes to support the country of Israel, the only democracy in the region. They are a great ally. We are talking a monster budget – less than 1 percent goes to foreign aid. I'm a strong believer that development assistance, foreign aid, is one leg of a three-part stool that we should sit on to promote America's interest and values around the world. We do use the military but there have been occasions in the past with more aggressive diplomacy and in conjunction with development assistance in foreign aid might've made a difference in reducing our potential exposure or need to use the military. The military is always the last resort. So, if you can support countries to advance, a lot of this aid goes to people to address real human needs like food, clothing, and shelter. For example, we got some stability several years ago in Lebanon and we removed the forces confronting one another – we chose not to give them much foreign aid. So, what happened – Iran gave hundreds of millions of dollars to Hezbollah..."

NOTE: Adding to guest's appropriate comments here – as guest mentioned later (at 9:13 a.m.), the request was for an increase in aid to Israel from the current $3 billion a year to $5 billion a year over the next 10 years. Guest noted that with the lifting of sanctions against Iran, "they [Iran] will get maybe $100 billion. Iran is a central bank for terrorism in the region. They fund Islamic Jihad, they are supporting rebels in Yemen. The list goes on. He [Netanyahu] has asked for a moderate increase in aid." Note that Iran has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel and is expected to increase its funding for terrorist Hezbollah organization located across Israel's border in neighboring country of Lebanon. Israel has repeatedly been attacked by Hezbollah.
 
Washington Journal in relevant discussions, invariably fails to inform viewers of the advantages of the American alliance with Israel. Several points are relevant here. First, financial (it is military only) aid to Israel constitutes only a tiny portion of the federal budget (less than 0.1 percent). Second, Israel is required by U.S. law to spend most (74 percent) of the U.S. aid in the United States for the purchase of military materials which helps create or sustain thousands of American jobs. Third, cooperative arrangements with Israel provide technology benefits to America related to unmanned aircraft, anti-missile defenses, battlefield medical techniques – and intelligence on anti-U.S. as well as anti-Israeli Arab and Islamic radicals. Consider votes in the U.N. over the last several years that coincided with U.S. votes – Israel is 90 percent, all other recipients of U.S. support are under 20 percent – Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Philippines and so-on.

November 12, 2015 – 9:16 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: TOM RIDGE, U.S. Dept. Homeland Security secretary (2013-05), Governor (Republican) of Pennsylvania (1995-2001).

Topic: Threats to U.S. national security.

Caller: Christian from Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (click here to view).

Note: Caller, ignorant of the relevant facts, falsely denigrates Israel as an ally.

Caller: "Don't let this guy [guest] grandstand – please. This is unbelievable. Okay now, I'm asking a question – how can you say Israel is our number one ally when they have not gone to war in Iraq, or when we fought in Afghanistan? Also, I have a followup question – so, please don't cut me off Greta – how can they [Israel] be our best ally when they do not send their troops over there into a country that we are fighting?"

Guest: "It's a fair question. We don't use the term ally simply by identifying those who send troops to support and promote our interest as well. They are an ally because we have a great relationship with them – information sharing, intelligence gathering in the region which is very important to us. They are an ally because we share values, they are an ally because our economic relationship is critical. They are an ally because – even if they have done nothing else – they preserve the democracy they so cherish and that they worry about every single day being extinguished by someone in the neighborhood. So, I think they had proven to be a great ally and will continue to be so."

Host: "Christian, are you still there?"

Caller: "Yes I am. That is a bunch of BS. You talk about leadership with President Obama then you tell me that leadership was with George Bush knowing that Al-Qaeda was going to hit the Twin Towers [in New York] on 9/11? You are saying leadership is going to a war over a lie for over 10 years – you think that leadership is Abu-Ghraib [in Iraq] – our people torturing others? We are Americans and we torture people? Is leadership sending over Blackwater and having them annihilate people? Is that leadership?"

Guest: "It has been a favorite hobby of some Democrats for the past seven years to view this president through a prism of criticism of his predecessor. You may continue to have your opinions with regard to what President Bush and his administration, I was part of it, but we did or failed to do. But it is disingenuous to keep referring to what happened nearly seven years ago as an excuse or subterfuge from ignoring the reality that some of us here feel that this administration with regard to foreign policy has failed to provide the international leadership that both our friends and foes expect of us. That isn't necessarily leadership that means we put military in harm's way at the first instance of a problem as a reflex action – but it is leadership that frankly doesn't exist. I know that the anti-Bush folks and strong Democrats have strong feelings about what transpired but I think that prism is disingenuous. It is legitimate for people like me to accept your criticism of President Bush with which I agree with but I do think you have to take a look at your own president and decide for yourself whether he's been strong and effective on the international scene. I just happen to disagree with that point of view."

NOTE: The caller, ignorant of the facts, falsely denigrates Israel. The reason for the absence of Israeli troops fighting alongside Western coalition troops along with Muslim allies in Middle East conflicts is because they weren't invited to do so. Why aren't they invited? The reason is the animosity of most Middle East Muslims towards Israel. They believe that a Jewish state does not belong in the Middle East. Never mind that a Jewish state existed (where the current one is) for more than a thousand years before the creation of Islam and appearance of the world's first Muslim.

November 10, 2015 – 9:13 a.m.

Host: PEDRO ECHEVARRIA (pechevarria@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Conservatives and Campaign 2016.

Guest: DAVID M. MCINTOSH, president of Club for Growth, former congressman (R-IN).

Caller: Anthony from St. Paul, Minnesota (click here to view).

Note: Neither the seemingly disinterested host nor the guest comment on caller's preposterous linking of what he perceives as a failure to invest more money into education – with "putting money into Israel's hands." Then when caller, obviously off-topic, continues to bash Israel, host and guest remain oblivious. Such is the level of chronic journalistic malpractice at C-SPAN's Washington Journal pertaining to Israel and Jews.

Caller: "My comment is – we are talking about the budget, we are steadily sending money to different countries and I have raised this point before. But the thing about it is that we need to start investing in education. The children that are out here now – you are talking about jobs and people being trained in other countries, and everything, we need to invest more in education and less in trying to put money into Israel's hands. I don't understand why everybody has forgotten about that Gaza thing. Nobody says anything about it. The Republicans – why are we still backing somebody that after 40 some years is still occupying the country. But if anyone else did it, we would be raising cane all over the word – we would cut them off. But we are still giving them money and now they want extra money."

Guest: "Well, on education – I think what we have seen today is record amounts of government money poured into educational systems but absolutely no real efforts to reform the way the money is used. The best way to do that is to empower parents to control where that money goes. So you set up a school choice program and parents can choose their local public school, different public school, or private school – and immediately what you see, you see the teachers and the leaders of that school begin to pay attention to what the students need rather than running the school for their benefit. And that would be the best way we could get a lot more education for the dollars that we spend."

NOTE: Caller, seemingly ignorant of the need of a sovereign country – Israel – to protect its citizens from missile bombardment from neighboring terrorist entity (Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip) – complains about the "Gaza thing" but viewers are left in the dark.

Caller's absurd reasoning claiming in effect that education is not funded sufficiently because funding is going toward financial aid to Israel – is not challenged. There are at least four relevant points about the mutually beneficial relationship between America and Israel. First, financial (military only) aid to Israel constitutes only a tiny portion of the federal budget (less than 0.1 percent). Second, Israel is required by U.S. law to spend most (74 percent) of the U.S. aid ($3 billion per year) in the United States for the purchase of military materials which helps create or sustain thousands of American jobs. Third, cooperative arrangements with Israel provide technology benefits to America related to unmanned aircraft, anti-missile defenses, battlefield medical techniques – and intelligence on anti-U.S. as well as anti-Israeli Arab and Islamic radicals. Fourth and perhaps most important in the long run, Israel, the only Western-style democracy in the Middle East, is a technologically advanced open society with equal rights for Christians and Muslims as well as Jews. Israel has women's equality, an independent judiciary, free press and is the only country in the region where Americans could live as freely as they do at home and one that, absent religious and ethnic prejudice, ought to be an example for the Middle East's many countries now in intra-communal upheaval.

As to the "occupying the country" charge – in the West Bank, Israel is the legal military occupational authority, pending a negotiated settlement according to U.N. Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. That's because it gained the territories in 1967 in a war of self-defense and held them the same way in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Further, it has not forcibly transferred Arabs out or Jews in, and the land itself is not an occupied part of a sovereign country but an unallocated, disputed remnant of the the League of Nations' Palestine Mandate. Article 6 of the Mandate calls for "close Jewish settlement" on the land west of the Jordan River. Article 6 is incorporated by Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, sometimes referred to as "the Palestine article." The United States endorsed the Mandate, including Article 6, in the 1924 Anglo-American Convention.

The West Bank is not sovereign territory of any country (there is not now and never has been a country of Palestine), but rather land disputed by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Part of Jerusalem (a city that has never been the capital of any nation except the Jews, beginning 3,000 years ago, and the West Bank were illegally occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967. Jordan's sovereignty was recognized only by Great Britain and Pakistan. Israel took control as a result of successful self-defense in the 1967 Six-Day War. As U.S. Undersecretary of State Eugene Rostow, a co-author of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 (1967), the keystone of all subsequent successful Arab-Israeli negotiations pointed out, 242 does not require complete Israeli withdrawal. Rather, the status of the territory, to which Jews as well as Arabs have legitimate claims, is to be resolved in negotiations as called for in the resolution and by U.N. Security Council Resolution 338 (1973). Meanwhile, Jewish villages and towns built in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria, the ancient homeland of the Jewish people) since 1967 are no more illegal than Arab areas built since then expanding previously-existing Arab villages and towns.

November 10, 2015 – 9:17 a.m.

Host: PEDRO ECHEVARRIA (pechevarria@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Conservatives and Campaign 2016.

Guest: DAVID M. MCINTOSH, president Club for Growth, former congressman (R-IN).

Caller: Diane from Michigan City, Indiana (click here to view).

Note: Repeat caller again bashes Israel on bogus issue of sending money to Israel for abortion – misleading potentially millions of C-SPAN viewers about Jews and Israel – a routine activity at Washington Journal.

Caller: "I wanted to bring to the attention of all Americans – I am a Christian – and we shouldn't use our religion for politics. It should stay out of it. And I wondered how many evangelists and people know that the money that we sent to Israel – they have free health care and they can get abortions for free down the street. Do you know that?"

Guest: "I did not know that. I visited Israel once and understand that they are our best ally in the Middle East because they share our values as a democratic country with free markets where people can choose to make their living the way they want to. We probably disagree on health care policies and other policies like that. I'm against taxpayer subsidies for abortions, so I do share that with you. But I do think Israel is surrounded by countries and particularly now with ISIS [Islamic State] entities that want to destroy them and ultimately, want to destroy western civilization and the United States. So they are an important ally – right at the tip of things especially with efforts to preserve our democratic values."

NOTE: This caller, "Diane from Michigan City, Indiana" previously called on Sept. 30, 2015 as "Noreen from Indiana" (click here to view) addressing the topic "House Republican Leadership Elections and Government Funding." Caller complained then that Christian evangelicals approve of sending "Our tax dollars to ... Israel [where] they have abortions up to eight months." But no U.S. taxpayer dollars go to Israel for abortion since the only financial aid is military aid and none of that is spent on abortions. Furthermore, Israel's government medical system provides funding for abortions under limitations similar to those in U.S. law.

November 9, 2015 – 7:35 a.m.

Host: JOHN MCARDLE (jmcardle@eenews.net, c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest caller: STEVEN MUFSON, Washington Post correspondent (click here to view).

Note: Doesn't correspondent Mufson here reflect a Washington Post bias against Israel?

Mini Topic: President Obama meets today with Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.
 
MUFSON: "... They clearly don't get along. They have different world views, I think. President Obama sees things in a very sort of rational way. He sees things moving generally in the world in a positive direction. I think that Netanyahu sees his country besieged by very dangerous neighbors who are not very far away. They have very different outlooks, I think. Each has felt that the other has done him wrong..."

NOTE: Correspondent Mufson contrasts Obama and Netanyahu by comparing Obama's "rational" (read logical, reasoned, sensible etc.) outlook with Netanyahu's outlook. This implies that Netanyahu's outlook is irrational, illogical, unreasoned, not sensible and so on. Doesn't the correspondent here reveal a Post corporate cultural bias against Israel and/or Netanyahu?

November 8, 2015 – 8:52 a.m.

Host: STEVE SCULLY (sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: Marc C. Ginsberg, former ambassador to Morocco.

Topic: Obama Administration's Mideast Policy.

Caller: Ken from Boca Raton, Florida (click here to view).

Note: Quite unusual for C-SPAN's Washington Journal – a caller who is reasonably factual about Israel's conflict with the Palestinian Arabs.

Caller: “Good morning Mr. Ginsberg. Since [Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu's name has been brought up, I would like to add just one point that some weeks ago he mentioned that the mufti in Jerusalem who he claimed was responsible for the Holocaust or partly responsible for the Holocaust. Indeed, the mufti from Jerusalem did do just that. He raised Bosnia and SS troops. He was responsible for 400,000 Jews being killed because he refused to let them go to Palestine. And Netanyahu became universally condemned for saying the truth. I'm so tired of revisionist history here. I've written three books on this particular area of the Middle East and I very much like to have your perspective. During the ‘80's, we had Iraq fighting Iraq -- one million casualties. We had Assad [the elder] killing 30,000 human beings, Muslim Brotherhood members. We had Hussein the elder killing 10,000 PLO [Palestine Liberation Organization] during black September. What makes us now -- why can't we just allow them to handle their own problems? We have Russia in there now. We have a coalition. We don't know who our friends are or who are enemies are. Why can't we just let them fight it out? They apparently do this with enthusiasm which is absolutely fascinating.”

Guest: “Thank you. You went through a lot of things in that. Let me get to the most important element. I have long stated in every article and television appearance that I made that I am not in favor of a major United States military involvement in Syria. I have strongly believed that the United States and its allies need to do everything possible to put Arab boots on the ground to fight ISIS. The Russians have had a 50 year commitment to the Assad regime -- the Assad father, the Assad son. They have military bases there. They want to create a new Shiite-run state in Syria. It is not our job to salvage a disintegrated Syria. Our job is to protect our core interests which does not include protecting the Assad regime. Job one in the Middle East for the United States right now is to help prevent ISIS from becoming a greater terrorist threat to the United States and to destabilize our allies, Israel, Jordan, as well as Lebanon.”

November 8, 2015 – 8:56 a.m.

Host: STEVE SCULLY (sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: Marc C. Ginsberg, former ambassador to Morocco.

Topic: Obama Administration's Mideast Policy.

Caller: Doug from Brookline, Massachusetts (click here to view).

Note: Repeat caller “Doug” – many calls, all bash Israel (see NOTE below).

Caller: “I'm sure your guest is familiar with the recent Jewish Forward [weekly New York based newspaper] article that can best described as a love letter from Hillary Clinton to Benjamin Netanyahu. It's the usual craven obsequious pandering in an election year. But anyway …”

Host (interrupting): “I'm not aware of that.”

Caller: “Jewish Forward. Yes -- from Hillary Clinton. She is the person who wrote it. But anyway, my question is a simple one. Do the Palestinians have the right to resist the occupation? I'll take the answer off the air.”

Guest: “The Palestinians in my judgment have the right to oppose the occupation through civil disobedience and without violence. They have accepted the Palestinian leadership accepted the Oslo accords. They recognized Israel. They have no right either legally or for any other means to resist the occupation. The occupation needs to end but it needs to end in a way that secures the Jewish state and I'm not sure at this point in time that Mr. Abbas and the Palestinian leadership have the foggiest notion hoe to lead their people forward and to make the compromises that are necessary. So I have vehemently opposed to any act of terrorism that masquerades as what I would call any opposition to the occupation.”

NOTE: Caller Doug's blame-Israel-only messages (routinely unchallenged by C-SPAN) include Aug. 23, 2015 (8:50 a.m.) (click here to view) and these: Jan. 25, 2015 (9:20 a.m.); Oct. 20, 2013 (9:55 a.m.); Sept. 15, 2013 (9:54 a.m.); March 20, 2013 (9:52 AM); Feb. 3, 2013 (8:21 AM); Oct 19, 2012 (8:15 AM); May 4, 2012 (9:14 AM); March 4, 2012 (9:18 AM); Jan. 8, 2012 (9:06 AM), Nov. 25, 2011 (9:06 AM), April 24, 2011 (9:32 AM), Feb. 19, 2011 (8:45 AM), Dec. 27, 2010 (7:50 AM), Nov. 24, 2010 (9:10 AM), April 11, 2010 (8:51 AM), Jan.1, 2010 (9:13 AM), Dec 20, 2009 (9:09 AM).

C-SPAN rarely, if ever, provides any context to inform viewers regarding “occupation.” The facts are these: In the West Bank, in fact, Israel is the legal military occupational authority, pending a negotiated settlement according to U.N. Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. That's because it gained the territories in 1967 in a war of self-defense and held them the same way in the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Further, it has not forcibly transferred Arabs out or Jews in, and the land itself is not an occupied part of a sovereign country but an unallocated, disputed remnant of the the League of Nations' Palestine Mandate. Article 6 of the Mandate calls for "close Jewish settlement" on the land west of the Jordan River. Article 6 is incorporated by Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, sometimes referred to as “the Palestine article.” The United States endorsed the Mandate, including Article 6, in the 1924 Anglo-American Convention.

The West Bank is not sovereign territory of any country (there is not now and never has been a country of Palestine), but rather land disputed by both Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Part of Jerusalem (a city that has never been the capital of any nation except the Jews, beginning 3,000 years ago, and the West Bank were illegally occupied by Jordan from 1948 to 1967. Jordan's sovereignty was recognized only by Great Britain and Pakistan. Israel took control as a result of successful self-defense in the 1967 Six-Day War. As U.S. Undersecretary of State Eugene Rostow, a co-author of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 (1967), the keystone of all subsequent successful Arab-Israeli negotiations pointed out, 242 does not require complete Israeli withdrawal. Rather, the status of the territory, to which Jews as well as Arabs have legitimate claims, is to be resolved in negotiations as called for in the resolution and by U.N. Security Council Resolution 338 (1973). Meanwhile, Jewish villages and towns built in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria, the ancient homeland of the Jewish people) since 1967 are no more illegal than Arab areas built since then expanding previously existing Arab villages and towns.

November 8, 2015 – 8:58 a.m.

Host: STEVE SCULLY (sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: Marc C. Ginsberg, former ambassador to Morocco.

Topic: Obama Administration's Mideast Policy.

Caller: Candace from Plymouth, Michigan (click here to view).

Caller: “I understand why Obama hates Netanyahu and resents Israel. It's because he spent 20 years sitting in the pew of Jeremiah Wright's church listening to antisemitism and anti-American spewing out of Jeremiah Wright's mouth. Now, this makes it very difficult for us to have a good relationship with Israel. It's just that our leader doesn't and that trickles down into all his smart-mouth little assistants to call Netanyahu a chicken you know what, and things like that and you can see it in the body language. When Netanyahu and Obama are sitting side-by-side, it's like Netanyahu is turned away. Obama is shooting daggers. It's really unfortunate for us, for America and for Israel, and I do anticipate that this will change in approximately 442 days or so when ever Obama leaves office. Thank you very much.”

Guest: “I have been very disappointed watching how this callow, juvenile White House staff has found every excuse to denigrate Mr. Netanyahu not withstanding his obvious anger and unhappiness with his relationship with Mr. Obama. The fact of the matter is I can sit here and recite chapter and verse of how many times Susan Rice [President's National Security Advisor; oversees the National Security Council staff] and her team have hid behind the white house podium throwing essentially pejorative curse words at a prime minister who represents one of our most important allies in the Middle East. It shows how the national security staff is not a mature staff but a political operation masquerading as a national security team...”

November 8, 2015 – 9:06 a.m.

Host: STEVE SCULLY (sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: Marc C. Ginsberg, former ambassador to Morocco.

Topic: Obama Administration's Mideast Policy.

Caller: Omar from Celina, Ohio (click here to view).

Caller: “I'm a Syrian-American and educated citizen. I'm very proud of this. Can you hear me?”

Host: “Yes, we can.”

Caller: “I am proud of being an American citizen since 1983… I was raised a Muslim, I believe in Abraham and Moses. I love Jewish people. I trust Netanyahu more than Obama. Netanyahu had that great speech to Congress about Iran. Obama flip-flopped, I'm just telling you that. He had -- I don't think guts to make (indiscernible) strength. I am anti-ISIS. He is not going to defeat ISIS. I'll tell you why. ISIS is a mixed bag made of former … from Assad… and from Saddam guys. Violence begets violence … and I love Mr. Ginsberg. I tell him, coming from the Middle East (indiscernible). Don't get to one up on the (indiscernible).”

Host: “Thank you Omar. A response?”

Guest: “First of all, let me just say that the catastrophe befalling the Syrian people is some thing I care deeply about, number one. Number two, there is no doubt that the relationship between Syria and Israel has always been a fascinating one. Ever since I lived in the Middle East it was quite clear that there were, shall we say, red lines that the Syrians knew not to cross with respect to Israel – on the Golan Heights or in its overall relationship. The fact of the matter is that before the civil war broke out, Syria was the major conduit for arms in the system between Iran and the radical Iranian regime to Hezbollah, it's proxy terrorist organization, in that it fought Israel in 2006 and continues to fight for the elimination of Israel. The question ultimately means what does Israel game by having a restoration of the Assad regime in Syria? Right now I cannot project it, no one can project it, who would replace Assad at this point in time. That is where the problem is. It is just ironic that a man who is responsible for 250,000 deaths and 6 million refugees has slowly been acknowledged by John Kerry and the President as not just a problem, but now ultimately part of the solution. They no longer are calling for his immediate removal, and it is now up to Iran and Russia, more than the United States, to determine his fate.”

November 8, 2015 – 9:10 a.m.

Host: STEVE SCULLY (sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: Marc C. Ginsberg, former ambassador to Morocco.

Topic: Obama Administration's Mideast Policy.

Tweeter: Robert (click here to view).

Host Scully selects a propagandistic Tweet.

Host: “Robert says this. Our Israeli ‘friends' need to stop oppressing Palestinians and stop taking over territories.”

Guest: “I am firmly opposed to the enterprise of settlements in the West Bank. I strongly believe that the encroachment onto Palestinian territory, settlements, has been one of the major factors in creating the dissention, anger, and resentment of the Palestinians towards a two-state solution. I could not agree more… Israel has continued, whether it is in East Jerusalem or throughout the West Bank, to promote the settlement enterprise. Settlements are ultimately going to – or at least a significant number of them -- be deconstructed if there is ever going to be hope for a two state solutions. Most Israelis understand that. Most Israelis view settlers as patriots but they too are against the settlement enterprise.”

NOTE: The facts contradict the notion that “settlements” (Jewish communities in Israel's ancient heartland) constitute the main obstacle, or even a genuine obstacle, to the two-state solution. The Palestinian liberation movement was formed in 1964 with the mission of “liberating Palestine [Israel] through armed struggle.” This was three years before Israel took control of the West Bank as a result of the defensive 1967 Six-Day War which led to the restoration of Jewish communities (“settlements”) in the West Bank. There is no evidence that the dominant Palestinian Arab culture has altered its animosity toward Israel since then. As to the idea that Jerusalem would be divided as part of a final agreement, it is fraught with dangers of a potential terrorist enclave. Furthermore, unmentioned in this discussion are the facts about two-state negotiations. There is the Palestinian Arab obstructionism in the refusal to come to the negotiating table without insistence on the refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The Palestinians also insist on full right of return for millions of Arab refugees (and their descendants) from 1948-49 having mostly fled at the insistence of Arab leaders. This is a non-starter since such a return would mean the end of the only Jewish state in a world which already has 22 Arab Muslim states. For the enemies of Israel, one Jewish state is one too many.

Moreover, there is nothing in Jewish society even remotely similar to the Palestinian Arab chronic indoctrination (via media, mosques, and schools) of its people aimed at the destruction of Israel and the Jews. This has inevitably led to violence against Jews perpetrated by Palestinian Arabs. But this kind of information is rarely if ever provided to Washington Journal callers.

November 8, 2015 – 9:12 a.m.

Host: STEVE SCULLY (sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: Marc C. Ginsberg, former ambassador to Morocco.

Topic: Obama Administration's Mideast Policy.

Caller: Teresa from Bolingbrook, Illinois (click here to view).

Caller: “There is so much I want to say, but really just that if you talk about a dictatorship, how the people in Libya and Syria did not elect their government. They did elect their government, just like the Palestinians elected Hamas and the U.S. and Israel did not recognize them because they did not like them. Let me just say this also. Iran never bombed anything American. On the other hand, Israel did bomb a U.S. Naval ship. Israel has never been very kind to people of color. That is why they mistreated the Ethiopian Jews in that region. They did not want them in Israel because they do not recognize them as Jews because of the color of their skin.”

Note: Caller has uttered a few big lies. Guest points to some of them – also see NOTE below.

Guest: “Well, first of all, I could not disagree more. You probably are making that judgment based on anecdotal evidence. There are thousands of Ethiopian Jews living in Israel, and the fact of the matter is -- that I was on a plane two years ago from Tel Aviv to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and the entire plane was filled with Ethiopian Jews, families who had gone to visit their families in Israel. So, I could not disagree more with you on that. Number two, Iran is responsible for more American deaths in the Middle East than you can imagine. It is responsible for engaging terrorists and supporting terrorist attacks against American troops in Iraq and against Americans in Lebanon, and against Americans in Saudi Arabia. The list goes on and on. To absolve Iran somehow – in effect, equate, in anyway, Israel's policies with saying that the people of Libya elected Khadaffi or the people of Iran duly elected Ahmadinejad as president – is ridiculous. The fact of the matter is that anyone who was known to have voted against them would have been killed.”

NOTE: Caller's racism charge against Israel is especially obscene because Israel is the very antithesis of a country practicing racism. The refutation of this accusation is the presence in Israel of thousands of dark-skinned fully assimilated Israeli Jewish citizens from Ethiopia, Yemen and India. As the late New York Times columnist William Safire memorably wrote on Jan. 7, 1985 after “Operation Moses,” the rescue of Ethiopian black Jews, was revealed, “For the first time in history, thousands of black people are being brought to a country not in chains but in dignity, not as slaves but as citizens.” Today, Ethiopian Jews fully participate in all aspects of Israeli society.

Caller's swipe at Israel, “Israel did bomb a U.S. Naval ship” is a favorite staple of anti-Israel polemicists. The accusation regarding the U.S.S. Liberty refers to the myth of a far-reaching conspiracy regarding what repeated investigations have determined was a tragic accident, Israel's attack on the Navy's U.S.S. Liberty during the 1967 Six-Day War. Six separate inquiries determined the attack to have been a "fog of war" mistake:

• C.I.A. report – June 13, 1967 – No malice; attack a mistake.
• U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry – June 18, 1967 – Mistaken identity.
• Report by presidential advisor Clark Clifford – July 18, 1967 – No evidence ship was known to be American.
• Senate Select Committee on Intelligence – 1979/1981 – No merit to claims attack was intentional. • National Security Agency – 1981 – Mistaken identity.• House Armed Services Committee – 1991/1992 – No support for claims attack was intentional.

November 8, 2015 – 9:15 a.m.

Host: STEVE SCULLY (sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: Marc C. Ginsberg, former ambassador to Morocco.

Topic: Obama Administration's Mideast Policy.

Caller: David from Alderwood Place [Staten Island] New York (click here to view).

Note: Caller is evidently is fine with 22 Arab Muslim states but one Jewish state -- existing where a Jewish state existed well before the world's first Muslim ever existed and well before the first Arab community ever existed in the area -- is one too many for him.

Caller: “After having struggled with respect to Israel for a two-state solution, which has really been futile -- what do you think about having a secular government there respective of one being Christian, Jews, or Muslim, where it accommodates the whole region as one united country. And when you talk about Syria being a Shiite government, a rather dictatorial system of the father and son in Syria were, the fact remains that it was a secular dictator where it accommodated everyone, Jews, Christians, Muslims and everybody and why not go after Saudi Arabia to cut the ideological and financial means of ISIS?”

Guest: “It is an interesting point you make, because indeed Syria was an extraordinarily secular country. It was sort of like Brooklyn. There were so many ethnic populations more or less living -- under the circumstances within a dictatorship -- but living more or less being able to practice their religion. Christians, Jews, Sunnis, etcetera. And this is what is such a catastrophe to watch Syria disintegrate into this catharsis of sectarian violence because indeed it was that case. Secondly on your point about Israel. Look, I am a passionate Zionist. I strongly believe that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state. The solution for Palestine and Israel in my judgment almost has to be taken out of the context of permitting or enabling the two states to continue to feud and to prevent the formation of the Palestinian state. I have always said that Israel needs to help create a Palestinian state living side by side with Israel. But it is probably not going to happen anymore because the Palestinian leadership at this point in time, and the Israeli leadership, is unable to reach a compromise. I am far more in favor of seeing the Arab peace initiative resurrected and having a strong American president who is more interested in a strategic place for the United States in the Middle East to help … use this Arab League initiative to help incubate a peace between Israel and all Arab states that would lead to the creation of a Palestinian state and perhaps provide Israelis with more of an incentive to make the compromises necessary to help bring about that Palestinian state.”

November 8, 2015 – 9:24 a.m.

Host: STEVE SCULLY (sscully@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: Marc C. Ginsberg, former ambassador to Morocco.

Topic: Obama Administration's Mideast Policy.

Scully here echoes (click here to view) C-SPAN's routinely-indulged cadre of callers who demand the cutoff of financial aid to Israel because “we need the money here.” But Washington Journal hosts never inform users of the relevant facts (see NOTE below). CAMERA has documented Scully's journalistic malpractice pertaining to Israel.

SCULLY: “Let me go back an area of your expertise. You worked for President Carter and one of the hallmarks of his administration was the Camp David peace accords but that did come at a price. You provided Israel with billions of dollars in aid over the years. I just want to summarize some of the tweets, people saying, ‘We need that money here. We shouldn't be paying it overseas including to Israel.' How do you respond to that sentiment?”

Guest: “It's a legitimate argument. It is American taxpayers that are funding this and we are providing a comparable amount if not three quarters of that amount to Egypt. That was the commitment that was made under Camp David. Now, is Israel capable of defending itself as our number one democratic ally in the region? Look, the Iron Dome [anti-missile] system that protected Israeli cities against Hamas missile attacks was produced and funded in part by the United States. Is this a right expenditure of America to an ally in the region? The fact of the matter is that when we look at what we spent on our allies whether it is South Korea, Japan, Germany, this is a small investment that we make in defending the number one democratic ally that we have in the Middle East.”

NOTE: C-Span's Washington Journal, when the subject is discussed, rarely, if ever, informs viewers of the advantages of the American alliance with Israel. Several points are relevant here. First, financial (it is military only) aid to Israel constitutes only a tiny portion of the federal budget (less than 0.1 percent). Second, Israel is required by U.S. law to spend most (74 percent) of the U.S. aid in the United States for the purchase of military materials which helps create or sustain thousands of American jobs. Third, cooperative arrangements with Israel provide technology benefits to America related to unmanned aircraft, anti-missile defenses, battlefield medical techniques – and intelligence on anti-U.S. as well as anti-Israeli Arab and Islamic radicals. Consider votes in the U.N. over the last several years that coincided with U.S. votes – Israel is 90 percent, all other recipients of U.S. support are under 20 percent – Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, Philippines and so-on.

November 3, 2015 – 7:40 a.m.

Host: PEDRO ECHEVARRIA (pechevarria@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Should voting be mandatory?

Caller: Patrick from Carnegie, Pennsylvania (click here to view).

Note: This repeat caller (see NOTE below) is of the large cadre of obsessively anti-Israel, blame-the-Jews Washington Journal phoners for whom any topic is grist for the mill. Here the indulged caller  typically defames Israel with not a scintilla of proof.

Host: "Patrick – up next from Carnegie, Pennsylvania – agrees with mandatory voting. Hello Patrick."

Caller: "I think mandatory voting would be fantastic as long as – the mandatory voting – particularly when it comes to the electronic aspect of it originated in the United States which it doesn't. No electronic system, particularly when what you are looking at is the Israeli influence in the United States. What I have heard is the hacking of American democracy which the Israelis have engaged in, is the utilization of systems, whether it is electronic or whatever. No nation should allow any foreign government to participate in the electronic constructs of any type of voting systems in the architecture of their voting. And so, what are the American people doing? The American people are allowing the Israeli government to manipulate the American electoral construct whether it's – it really doesn't matter."

Note: Conspiracy mongering caller outraged about "hacking" (using a computer to gain unauthorized access to a system) – but apparently unconcerned (or unaware) about highly publicized reports from reliable sources of hacking from China into U.S. government facilities especially e-mail accounts – misuses the discussion to lambaste Israel. Other than the usual suspects (a few notoriously disreputable, antisemitic Web sites), mention of such baseless charges against Israel cannot be found online.

Host (interrupting): "So, Patrick, for those claims you make, what are you basing that off of?"

Note: Host briefly interrupted three-minute diatribe to merely mildly challenge caller which then served only to enable resumption of the diatribe.

Caller: "Well, there are multiple companies within the Israeli government that are participating in the system in the United States and what you are doing as a media system, you are underwriting it. Let be very clear, the American people do not support the aspects of what the Israeli government is doing particularly when it comes to the oppression of the Palestinian people. And you just convey it without any discourse among the American people and you just say, well, democracy isn't going to be hacked."

[Host does not comment.]

NOTE: Repeat phoner "Patrick" previously called (click here to view) C-SPAN on Sept. 15, 2014 with a contribution to the discussion, "President Obama's ISIS strategy." Phoner included this gem, "The only existential threat to the United States of America is the Israeli government ..." and so-on. The CAMERA C-SPAN Watch entry, at the time, commented (it's applicable here as well), "Two unavoidable questions for C-SPAN management: How do such flat-Earth, anti-Israel conspiracy theory callers periodically get past Washington Journal screeners and why do program hosts not cut them off before entertaining their questions or allegations, or handing them off to guests?" Guest for that discussion, Eli Lake (former senior national security correspondent for The Daily Beast and Newsweek and currently a columnist for the Bloomberg View), aptly commented, "Make sure, sir, if you're watching this, to look out for the man in a white lab coat. He is only trying to help your recovery. I wish you luck with your mental illness." Lake has not since appeared as a Washington Journal guest. Paraphrasing Lake, "C-SPAN, we wish you luck with your problematic Journal unprofessional hosting and call-screening enabling lambasting of Jews and Israel."

October 31, 2015 – 8:28 a.m.

Host: YLAN MUI, Washington Post financial reporter (journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: ANDREW TILGHMAN, military correspondent for Military Times.

Topic: U.S. Military Involvement in Iraq and Syria

Caller: Chris from Milwaukee, Wisconsin (click here to view).

Note: Caller's monologue arguing for U.S. withdrawal from Middle East condemns U.S. policy. Caller names several other countries, condemning only Israel (without offering any evidence or being asked to do so). This is business as usual at C-SPAN's Washington Journal.

Caller: “I would like to know about the covert actions that were going on before the Syrian civil war totally broke out. It seems to me that there is a picture of McCain [John McCain, United States Senator (Arizona)] with a man who was supposed to be a good guy, and turned out to be an ISIL leader [this allegation seems to be unfounded]. Israel was trying to get us to go to war, giving us misinformation years back. I had told my husband that Syria was going to be next before the civil war ever broke out. This is very important because we put our noses in everywhere, because we have covert operations going on in Venezuela, everywhere. And Afghanistan – we've asked the Russians, we backed the Taliban, and now we fight the Taliban. I just don't understand any of it, and I want us out of the Middle East. Thank you.”

Host: “That's Chris in Wisconsin.”

Guest: “Those are interesting points. I think that one thing I would like to mention – because we spent a long time talking about Syria – because of the announcement yesterday – another dynamic of this is clearly on the Iraq side of the border. The President made a call to the Iraqi prime minister yesterday. There has been a lot of concern about that because the Iraqis have not made much progress at all in pushing ISIS back out of the territory they have seized over the past 18 months. I think that that is a pretty significant factor. There is a lot going on with the Syrian civil war and the United States wants to be able to have them influence there. But they are also concerned about Iraq, where 30 percent or 40 percent of the country right now, some of its major metropolitan areas, are under the control of Islamic militants. There have been some pretty significant statements from U.S. officials about how, sort of sayng, ‘oh, it's going to happen soon' but it just hasn't happened. I do think there is a lot of tension between the United States military and the Iraqis, with the U.S. Military base sort of saying, ‘come on guys, we are providing you with daily airstrikes, billions of dollars, several thousand boots on the ground. You have to take the fight to these guys', and they just have not. So that is underlying all of this. The fact that things are kind of [indiscernible] it is hard to say they are not stalled in Iraq right now.”

NOTE: Typically for C-SPAN's Washington Journal, there is no challenge to caller's defamation of Israel – “Israel trying to get us to go to war, giving us misinformation years back.” What is the evidence for this charge? The question is not asked. Guest's lengthy comment omits mention of the defamation while actually seeming to credit the caller – “Those are interesting points.” At Journal, it's always open season on the Jewish state.

October 26, 2015 – 8:16 a.m.

Host: PEDRO ECHEVARRIA (pechevarria@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: JOSH GORDON, Concord Coalition policy director.

Topic: Debt Ceiling and Federal Spending.

Caller: Richard from Grandview, Missouri (click here to view).

Note: This detached-from-reality Washington Journal caller evidently believes that U.S. financial aid to Israel is the reason there allegedly isn't sufficient funding to "help the children of America." Typically, for the supposed public-service network, C-SPAN, it's of no concern or interest as to why Israel was singled out by the caller for castigation here (a routine occurrence by numerous callers to the broadcast over a period of several years). If Washington Journal was journalistically responsible, it would probe the caller's source of information and even his thought process for bashing Israel.

Caller: "My question is – we are being in debt and didn't I hear that we were going to give Israel all this money? All this money! And then I said to myself, how is it that American people are so broke that they cannot help the children of America, but they have these big wars and they can give Israel all those billions and billions of dollars? And there's one thing I want to say for certain – we keep funneling all that money to Israel [indiscernible] destruction to America."

Guest: "Well I think this is one of the things – my organization goes around the country and tries to educate the country on the federal budget. A lot of Americans are concerned about how much we spend on foreign aid. But if you look at the budget, our total foreign aid budget is about $50 billion. That is about 1 percent of our total budgetary spending. So, even if we eliminated all of foreign aid to every country completely – as I said, our deficit this year is about $400 billion – you still are not getting very far in terms of reducing the deficit, especially if you look long-term– the budget is not projected to grow very much while the rest of the budget is to grow substantially. This is something that one of the last callers mentioned about spending on legislative staff in congress. One of the things that Americans do not realize is that we reduced the amount of spending on things like foreign aid, legislative staff, all of our ... spending has gone down pretty dramatically. We're spending [proportionally] at about the lowest level in history on all those spending programs and actually projected to spend even lower going forward for the next five-ten years. That type of spending is really shrinking as a share of the economy. The spending that is growing more quickly than the economy – is spending on programs like social security and medicare and health care programs, retirement program. That spending will grow while this discretionary appropriations spending is actually shrinking..."

Note: Responding to the call, guest appropriately points out that the total U.S. foreign aid budget is about $50 billion – that is only about 1 percent of total budgetary spending. Guest didn't respond directly to the caller's absurd claim about Israel but if he had, he could have pointed out at least four relevant points about the mutually beneficial relationship between America and Israel. First, financial (military only) aid to Israel constitutes only a tiny portion of the federal budget (less than 0.1 percent). Second, Israel is required by U.S. law to spend most (74 percent) of the U.S. aid ($3 billion per year) in the United States for the purchase of military materials which helps create or sustain thousands of American jobs. Third, cooperative arrangements with Israel provide technology benefits to America related to unmanned aircraft, anti-missile defenses, battlefield medical techniques – and intelligence on anti-U.S. as well as anti-Israeli Arab and Islamic radicals.

Fourth and perhaps most important in the long run, Israel, the only Western-style democracy in the Middle East, is a technologically advanced open society with equal rights for Christians and Muslims as well as Jews. Israel has women's equality, an independent judiciary, free press and is the only country in the region where Americans could live as freely as they do at home and one that, absent religious and ethnic prejudice, ought to be an example for the Middle East's many countries now in intra-communal upheaval.

October 21, 2015 – 9:41 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Guest: SHARYL ATTKISSON, investigative reporter, author, former CBS News correspondent.

Topic: September 11, 2012 Benghazi Attack [by Islamic extremists that killed the American ambassador and three other Americans].

Caller: Tony from District Heights, Maryland (click here to view).

Note: Tony's Washington Journal calls involve condemnation of the Jewish state (see Note below for his prior calls). Here, also, the caller mocks those (including the guest) who use the phrase, “Islamic extremist” to refer to those he apparently considers to be Muslim Arab patriots. Typically for C-SPAN, neither host nor guest challenges this caller's mendacious claim that the reason for the American presence in Libya and Iraq is “to make money or to do Israel's business for them.“

Caller: “I have been waiting for a while on the line and I have not heard this lady [guest Attkisson] mention this in a little bit, but she mentioned it quite frequently when I first tuned in. And that is the two words ‘Islamic extremist.' You love to say that, you and certain other people. Let me tell you something, I would not care what you call me if another country came into this country and overthrew our government. You can me Al-Qaeda, you can call me a Christian extremist, a Jewish extremist. We have those, too, okay? But you guys love to say ‘Islamic extremist.' We had no business being in Libya or Iraq unless we're there to make money or to do Israel's business for them.“

Host: “Okay, Tony, I think we are following your point.”

Guest: “When he says, ‘you guys,' he is making an unfair stereotype. I would point out that I don't love using the name [term ‘Islamic extremist'] one where the other, I'm just presenting the facts. Some want to avoid that name, that's fine. I'm just telling it like it is because I'm not susceptible to, I think sometimes, to the propaganda campaigns that are out there to try to steer the narratives one way or the other. They were Islamic extremist terrorists, even the Administration said behind closed doors, they just did not use those words publicly. I think that was maybe the beginning of -- we now know the Administration does not want to say that phrase. Now it is no surprise to know it because he has been asked about it because President Obama has avoided using those words. But maybe this is the first time we understood or saw that they wanted to carve out that phrase – carve it out of the [Benghazi] talking points and carve it out of the public discussion and maybe rightfully so. That is up to other people to decide.”

NOTE: Tony's prior C-SPAN calls include these:

* Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard magazine founder and editor, was mistreated based on his Jewish identity. Caller "Tony from Maryland" (March 16, 2015) (click here to view) castigated guest Kristol with the infamous antisemitic double-loyalty accusation, "...This is constant. Terrorism is a business. A lot of you guys benefit from that. You need to move to Israel. You pledge your allegiance to Israel more than to this country..." Kristol responded, "... I think you are unfortunate that you think people like me and others allegedly owe allegiance to Israel.” Typically, a C-SPAN host indulged such a caller.

* “Tony” (Dec. 26, 2013) (click here to view) conspiracy mongered in venomously and falsely alleging that Israel was responsible for the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center and that C-SPAN cuts off callers when they bring up this notion. Ironically, just the opposite is true in terms of terminating such callers. As CAMERA has documented since November 2008, it's essentially always open season on attacking Jews and Israel on Washington Journal broadcasts.

October 7, 2015 – 7:39 a.m.

Host: GRETA BRAWNER (gbrawner@c-span.org, journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Should the U.S. keep troops in Afghanistan?

Host: Robert from Henderson, Kentucky (click here to view).

Caller: "I think that we should get out of Afghanistan. George Bush and Dick Cheney, I believe they should be held on war crimes. They went into Iraq under false pretense and then Dick Cheney's company, Halliburton, had the contract that actually laid the pipeline for the oil in Afghanistan which was a gross conflict of interest. He profited from people dying – soldiers dying – and then he's quick to get on television and lambaste the foreign policy of the American – of President Obama. Israel dictates the foreign policy of America. We should not be in Afghanistan. We do not have the money ..."

Host (interrupting): "But Robert, why do you believe that Israel dictates the foreign policy of the United States? Why do you believe that?"

Caller: "Because so many senators are beholding to the Israeli Knesset [parliament]."

Host: "How do you know that?"

Caller: "Because they have pledged – they always go to the Jewish lobby. When [Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu came over here, he basically demanded from the senators and the Congress persons what he wanted."

Note: Who mainly runs U.S. foreign policy? "Nineteenth-century presidents had to contend with Congressional influences in foreign affairs, and particularly with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. But by the early 1960s, the president had become the undisputed architect of U.S. foreign policy." (“Power and the Presidency, From Kennedy to Obama” by Robert Dallek, Smithsonian Magazine, January 2011). If Israeli and "the Jewish lobby" "dictate" U.S. foreign policy, how did the Obama administration reach the nuclear agreement with Iran over the strenuous objections of Israel and its American supporters (among many others)?

Host (interrupting): "Okay, Robert. You're making that accusation without the evidence and the numbers."

NOTE: The C-SPAN host does not bite on the caller's allegations that President George W. Bush and former Vice President Richard Cheney led American troops into war in Iraq on intelligence they knew to be false or that Cheney profited from the deaths of American forces. But she does jump at the anti-Israel charge. At least in this case, a Washington Journal moderator attempts to question, if superficially, an antisemitic caller. In this three-hour broadcast, "Robert from Kentucky," accusing Israel and American Jews, was the only caller claiming that some entity, group, or country controls or dictates American foreign policy. As documented by CAMERA, Washington Journal's call-screening process seems to protect ethnic/religious/national groups – except Jews and/or Israel – from hostile if not bigoted remarks. Journal hosts and guests rarely refute such blame-the-Jews-for-everything callers. Host Brawner here at least recognizes something might be amiss with the accusations.

October 3, 2015 – 7:21 a.m.

Host: Ylan Mui, Washington Post financial reporter (journal@c-span.org, viewer@c-span.org).

Topic: Your view of Benghazi Oversight Special Committee.

Note: The purpose of the "House Select Committee on Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi" was to investigate the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya that resulted in the deaths of the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans. The committee was charged with determining if any failures by various U.S. officials, including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in carrying out their responsibilities led to the deaths.

Caller: Ed from Bowie, Maryland (click here to view).

Note: Caller's conspiracy theory about the Benghazi inquiry in Congress vilifies Israel, among others, just as this same caller did in a nearly identical prior call (identifying himself then as “George”) (see Note below). Just another typical day at C-SPAN – a caller voicing far-fetched views is indulged by a seemingly disinterested Washington Journal host.

Caller: “When you speak or are speaking out, like the last caller mentioned, and wake up America, I think what we need to do is look at the very beginning of the whole Benghazi situation in that basically Mitt Romney spent three weeks in Israel, fundraising prior to the election. Basically, Benghazi occurred, and you had Fox News with all this video of the Benghazi attack. Basically, Romney knew so clearly that it was a terrorist attack. How did he know? How did they get this video? It was really a propaganda campaign to replace President Obama with Romney. Then, when that did not work, that is when it shifted to Hillary Clinton. I would like everybody to go to the beginning, to the first day or even three weeks prior to Benghazi. Go online, look it up. And you'll find out why Romney was illegally raising money to win the White House. How did he know so clearly that Benghazi was a terrorist attack? Who told him? How did he know? There is a conspiracy behind this whole propaganda campaign now to get rid of Hillary Clinton, but initially it was to replace President Obama with Mitt Romney.”

Host: “All right, Ed from Bowie Maryland. We hear you this morning. We are talking about the Benghazi Oversight Committee and your view of the investigation …”

NOTE: Tolerance or indulgence of anti-Israel, anti-Jewish callers is the rule, not the exception, on C-SPAN's Washington Journal. This same caller, identifying himself as “George from Bowie, Maryland” (click here to view) phoning on May 2, 2014 (7:31 a.m.) voiced essentially identical spurious (and unchallenged by C-SPAN host) views about the Benghazi situation in which he vilified Mitt Romney, Republicans and Israel. The host for that call, just as today's, could have – but failed to request corroboration for the allegations. No reliable online source for the allegations is to be found. No major print or broadcast news outlet has reported allegations, let alone proof, of a connection between Mitt Romney's trip to Israel and the Arab terrorist attack on the U.S. mission in Bengazi, Libya. But, characteristically, this was not pointed out by the host, who also made no attempt to determine if the caller's views were shaped by, say, scurrilous Web sites or polemical newsletters. Such is the level of (chronic) journalistic malpractice of C-SPAN's Washington Journal, especially when discussion turns to or just mentions Israel.  
 

Bookmark and Share